Supreme Court of Cassation: Acting Prosecutor General Sarafov No Longer Has Authority to Request Reopening of Criminal Cases

According to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC), the powers of the acting Prosecutor General cease under Article 173(15) of the Judiciary Act (ЗСВ) after the six-month period from the entry into force of this provision. Consequently, any request to reopen a criminal case submitted by the acting Prosecutor General after 21 July 2025 does not constitute a valid referral, the SCC announced on October 2.

Two rulings issued on 2 October 2025—one by the Deputy President of the SCC and head of the Criminal Chamber, and another by the Chair of the Second Criminal Chamber—denied proceedings on requests filed by the acting Prosecutor General to reopen criminal cases.

In examining whether grounds existed to initiate proceedings under Chapter Thirty-Three of the Criminal Procedure Code, the following was considered:

• The requests were signed by acting Prosecutor General Borislav Sarafov.

• By decision of the Prosecutor’s College of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), Protocol No. 21/16.06.2023, Borislav Sarafov was appointed as the acting “Prosecutor General of the Republic of Bulgaria.”

• Under the Amendment to the Judiciary Act, Article 173(15) (promulgated in State Gazette No. 6/2025, in force from 21 January 2025), it is stipulated that “in the event of early termination or expiry of the mandate of the Prosecutor General, the President of the Supreme Court of Cassation, or the President of the Supreme Administrative Court, an acting official shall be appointed for the corresponding functions, provided that the same person may not perform these functions for a period exceeding six months, regardless of whether there were interruptions in the exercise of the functions.”

The SCC highlighted that the six-month period under the provision expired on 21 July 2025. The appointment of Borislav Sarafov as acting Prosecutor General remains legally binding and is still in effect.

The Court clarified that the stability of the individual administrative act appointing Sarafov as acting Prosecutor General on 16 June 2023 does not conflict with the legal consequences of the new Article 173(15). The provision has what is termed a non-substantive retroactive effect on existing legal relationships, meaning that it regulates future relations without altering past ones. The new legal regime adjusts ongoing legal relationships prospectively, unlike true retroactivity, which affects past legal situations (Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/11.05.2017).

The provision preserves the legal character of the fact that occurred before its entry into force (the appointment of the acting Prosecutor General) but alters its legal consequences. “Specifically, in this case, it follows that the person appointed to perform the functions of Prosecutor General at the time the provision entered into force, upon the expiry of the six-month period from that date, may no longer exercise these functions going forward.

The interpretation of Article 173(15) of the Judiciary Act establishes that the termination of the acting Prosecutor General’s powers occurs ex lege,” the rulings clarify. These considerations underpinned the decision of the General Assembly of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) on 18 September 2025, which determined that the powers of the acting Prosecutor General cease under Article 173(15) of the Judiciary Act after the six-month period following the provision’s entry into force. Consequently, any request to reopen a criminal case submitted by the acting Prosecutor General after 21 July 2025 does not constitute a valid referral to the Criminal Division of the SCC and justifies the refusal to initiate proceedings.

“In this context, the acting Prosecutor General cannot be regarded as having active legal standing to submit a request for reopening. In this case, the individual who submitted the request—the acting Prosecutor General—although formally falling within the scope of Article 420(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, cannot exercise this authority in accordance with the legislative amendment under Article 173(15) of the Judiciary Act,” the reasoning concludes.