Bulgarian President Rumen Radev has taken the step of referring the Constitutional Court to seek a mandatory interpretation of the Constitution, challenging the refusal by the Speaker of the National Assembly to put forward for parliamentary debate a proposal for a national referendum. The referendum question concerns Bulgaria’s adoption of the euro in 2026.

In his appeal, Radev emphasizes that the exercise of constitutional powers by state bodies during the process of calling a national referendum must maintain a proper balance between direct and representative democracy. This balance, he argues, is essential to fulfilling the constitutional goal of ensuring citizens' participation in governing the country.

The President stresses that only a clear, mandatory interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding the powers of both the National Assembly and its chairman in overseeing direct democracy mechanisms can guarantee consistent and unambiguous application of the law.

Radev insists that according to Article 84, p.5 of the Constitution, it is solely the National Assembly that must make a formal ruling when deciding whether to hold a national referendum, including cases where a proposal submitted by a constitutionally authorized body is rejected. No other institution or official has the authority to decide in its place.

He further highlights that the Constitution does not permit the National Assembly’s power to be bypassed through an implied or silent refusal to consider such proposals. Such inaction, he warns, would equate to a denial of parliamentary governance.

Additionally, the President criticizes the Speaker’s decision to not only block the referendum proposal but also, in doing so, effectively assume the authority of the National Assembly by ruling on the substance of the referendum question. Radev argues this approach violates constitutional principles, hampers the proper legal procedure for organizing referendums, generates uncertainty, and limits citizens' rights to participate directly in political decision-making.

On these grounds, invoking Article 22, par. 3 of the Constitutional Court Act, Radev asks the Court to annul the Speaker’s order refusing to bring the referendum question before parliament, declaring it invalid.