The government has decided to withdraw all three Bulgarian nominations for the position of European Prosecutor, effectively restarting the procedure after identifying serious flaws in the initial selection process. The candidates affected are Dimitar Belichev, Mihaela Raidovska and Plamen Petkov, with the Minister of Justice tasked with informing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and launching a new selection procedure.

According to the Council of Ministers, the new process will be conducted under revised and clearly defined rules, with a five-member selection panel. The commission is set to include a habilitated professor in criminal law or criminal procedure, two judges from the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation, one prosecutor from the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office, and one lawyer with at least 12 years of experience in criminal and EU law. In addition, a representative of the Minister of Justice, fluent in English, will participate without voting rights.

The decision to scrap the previous nominations follows what officials described as a “comprehensive and in-depth analysis” by the Ministry of Justice, which uncovered “significant and systemic deficiencies” in the procedure conducted between October 2025 and January 2026. These shortcomings were said to affect both the organization and the legal integrity of the selection.

Among the key concerns was the composition of the earlier seven-member selection committee, which included representatives from the Ministry of Justice, the prosecutorial and judicial colleges of the Supreme Judicial Council, and Sofia University. The government highlighted that four members of the Supreme Judicial Council involved in the process had mandates that expired in October 2022, yet they remained in positions where they could form a majority. This raised doubts about the legitimacy of decisions taken, particularly in relation to such a high-level European judicial role.

Additional criticism focused on the involvement of the executive branch. The commission had been chaired by a deputy justice minister, while another member was also appointed by the ministry. According to the government, this created “justified concern” over potential political influence and risked undermining judicial independence. It was noted that the only participant viewed as fully independent was the academic representative, leaving the body as a whole unable to ensure an impartial and depoliticized outcome.

The process was further undermined by the absence of заранее established and publicly available criteria for evaluating candidates. Authorities pointed out that there were no clear rules or methodology in place to assess professional qualifications, knowledge, or ethical standards, which cast further doubt over the credibility of the selection.