Bulgaria's Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) issued two rulings on October 2, 2025, which determined that Borislav Sarafov no longer holds the role of Acting Prosecutor General and therefore has no authority to request the reopening of criminal cases. The decisions were issued separately by the Deputy President of the SCC and Head of the Criminal Chamber, as well as by the President of the Second Criminal Chamber.

The judges pointed out that under Article 173, paragraph 15 of the Judicial System Act (JSA), the functions of an acting Prosecutor General automatically end six months after the entry into force of the legal amendment that introduced this provision. The law came into force on January 21, 2025, which means the six-month period expired on July 21, 2025. Consequently, any requests filed by Sarafov in this capacity after that date were considered invalid referrals.

The court emphasized that the appointment of Sarafov by the Prosecutorial College of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) in June 2023 remains a valid administrative act, but its legal consequences are subject to the new legislation. According to the SCC, the provision has a “non-substantive retroactive effect,” meaning it does not alter past appointments but regulates their legal impact going forward. In practical terms, Sarafov could not continue exercising the functions of Acting Prosecutor General beyond the six-month limit imposed by the law.

In their reasoning, the judges explained that when a request to reopen a case is submitted after the deadline, it cannot be treated as a valid procedural action. While Sarafov was formally within the group of individuals entitled under Article 420, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code to request the resumption of proceedings, the legislative change removed his authority to do so. The SCC further referenced its General Assembly decision from September 18, 2025, which had already clarified this interpretation, stressing that termination of the functions occurs ex lege - by the force of law, not by a separate administrative act.

In response, the prosecutor’s office issued a statement, emphasizing that the SCC’s ruling does not affect Sarafov’s position. According to the prosecution, the decision of the Prosecutorial College of the SJC, which appointed Sarafov as Acting Prosecutor General, remains in force and can only be overturned by the Supreme Administrative Court, not by the SCC. They further argued that the immediate impact of the SCC’s act is not on Sarafov himself but on victims in specific criminal cases. These include high-profile matters such as the reassignment of the investigation into the death of Siyana to Sofia and the transfer of the ATV accident case in Sunny Beach to the National Investigation Service.

The prosecutor’s office therefore warned that the rulings of the SCC may hinder victims’ access to justice, as they effectively block the reopening of cases that Sarafov had requested.

Meanwhile, only days earlier, the Prosecutorial College of the SJC reaffirmed its decision to keep Sarafov in the role of Acting Prosecutor General, rejecting proposals to initiate administrative proceedings for appointing a new interim officeholder. This duality between judicial interpretations and the position of the SJC leaves open questions about the institutional balance of powers and the immediate implications for pending criminal cases.