The case surrounding acting Prime Minister Andrey Gyurov and his removal from the Bulgarian National Bank has returned to the spotlight, though much of the public interpretation appears to go beyond what has actually been established. While strong political and media claims suggest clear conclusions, the legal reality remains more nuanced and far from settled.

At the center of the debate is a development from the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has not issued a final ruling but rather an opinion from an Advocate General. Despite this distinction, the document has already been widely portrayed as definitive proof regarding Gyurov’s status, even though it does not carry the force of a binding judgment.

The case dates back to 2023, when Gyurov was appointed Deputy Governor of the Bulgarian National Bank (BNB). Following constitutional changes later that year, this position placed him among those eligible to be selected as caretaker prime minister. In 2024, however, the now-defunct Anti-Corruption Commission ruled that he had a conflict of interest, citing delayed withdrawal from company management roles. Based on that decision, the BNB removed him from office, a move some legal experts argue was not mandatory for the institution.

Gyurov challenged both the conflict of interest finding and his dismissal. Lower courts ruled in his favor, but the Supreme Administrative Court chose not to deliver a final judgment and instead requested interpretative guidance from the EU court through a preliminary ruling procedure. This step effectively froze the proceedings for an extended period, leaving Gyurov’s legal status unresolved.

During that time, the uncertainty influenced political decisions. Former President Rumen Radev refrained from nominating Gyurov for caretaker prime minister, citing the unclear legal situation. His successor, Iliana Yotova, later took a different approach and appointed him to the role.

The opinion now at the center of the controversy was issued by Advocate General Nicolas Emilio. It does not assess whether the decisions against Gyurov were lawful. Instead, it focuses on how EU law should be interpreted in cases involving central bank officials. The opinion states that while national legislation may define conflict-of-interest rules, it must also ensure clear procedures for establishing such conflicts and allow time for their resolution. It further emphasizes that a central bank should not remove a senior official solely on the basis of an external signal, but only after conducting its own verification.

Importantly, this opinion does not resolve the dispute. Only the Court of Justice of the EU can issue a binding ruling, which is still pending. Even after that, the final decision on Gyurov’s removal will rest with Bulgaria’s Supreme Administrative Court, which must apply the EU court’s interpretation when ruling on the case.

At the same time, a new development has complicated the situation further. The BNB has requested that the Supreme Administrative Court terminate the case altogether, arguing that Gyurov is no longer in the position from which he was removed. The bank has also asked for the withdrawal of the request for a preliminary ruling from the EU court. According to Gyurov’s supporters, such a move could prevent him from ever obtaining a definitive judgment on the legality of his dismissal.

Political reactions were swift following the publication of the Advocate General’s opinion. Parties such as DPS, led by Delyan Peevski, and “There is Such a People” interpreted it as confirmation that Gyurov had been unlawfully in office and therefore could not serve as caretaker prime minister. Similar conclusions were echoed in parts of the media, although some outlets later revised their coverage.

In reality, the legal process remains ongoing. No final judgment has been delivered, and the key questions about Gyurov’s removal and its implications for his political role are still awaiting resolution.