"The decision of the Constitutional Court means exactly that - that for the period from May to September, despite the fact that he exercised this state function, Kiril Petkov was not Minister of Economy," lawyer Valya Gigova told BNR.

"The decision of the Constitutional Court is a fact and there is no sense in commenting on it.

What will be the legal consequences of a decision of the Constitutional Court on the acts of Kiril Petkov as Minister of Economy, the court did not give an answer. It had to give one if you ask me. Because we are in a complicated situation.

The Constitutional Court says only about the direct legal consequences, namely about the unconstitutionality of the Decree itself, from which the legal consequence that he was never a minister - the minister, occur by virtue of the constitutional decision.

And all other issues arising from this are decided by the courts on the basis of the relevant laws. We are talking about his normative acts - normative and non-normative, individual, general, but it also makes civil-legal statements.

The legal system explicitly regulates all administrative acts of the Minister as null and void if they are issued by an incompetent body. However, this nullity must be declared in court. That is, it will take time to possibly attack the minister. So far there is no such practice and such a case as that of Kiril Petkov.

This situation will be a test for everyone involved in this case," said lawyer Gigova in "Before All ".

Regarding the dismissed heads of BDB and the Consolidation Company, Gigova stated that there he did not issue individual administrative acts, but exercised the rights of the state as the sole owner of the capital in these companies:

"My opinion is that in such a crisis of statehood, a decision will have to be made by the current minister to reaffirm Kiril Petkov's decisions," said lawyer Gigova.

/BNR