TO: MS LAURA CODRUȚA KÖVESI
European Chief Prosecutor European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)
ATTN: MR. ANDRÉS RITTER Deputy European Chief Prosecutor European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)
COPY TO:
1. MR. MICHAEL MCGRATH European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, and the Rule of Law European Commission
2. MS. HENNA VIRKKUNEN Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy European Commission
3. MR. MAROŠ ŠEFČOVIČ European Commissioner for Interinstitutional Relations and Transparency European Commission
4. THE CHAIR OF THE LIBE COMMITTEE Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs European Parliament
5. THE CHAIR OF THE DRFMG (Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group) Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) European Parliament
DATE: April 15, 2026
PLACE: Sofia, Bulgaria
SUBJECT: Joint civil society position on the withdrawal of candidacies for European Prosecutor
FROM: A coalition of Bulgarian civil society organizations working in the fields of rule of law, human rights, anticorruption and good governance (full list below)
DEAR MADAM CHIEF PROSECUTOR,
As civil society organisations which have been monitoring and analyzing the state of the rule of law, judicial independence, human rights and good governance in Bulgaria for decades, we would like to express our position regarding the withdrawal of the previously submitted shortlist of candidates for the position of European Prosecutor.
Background and Established Circumstances
By decision of 8 April 2026[1], the Council of Ministers (CoM) annulled its previous Decision № 50 of 21 January 2026 and withdrew the shortlist of candidates consisting of: Dimitar Belichev, Mihaela Raidovska and Plamen Petkov.
According to the reasoning provided by the CoM, the withdrawal followed a review conducted by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) that found serious and systemic deficiencies in the national selection procedure carried out between October 2025 and January 2026. These deficiencies affected both the organisation and the lawfulness of the process, including:
· the composition of the national selection panel:
- four members of the Supreme Judicial Council whose mandates had long expired in October 2022, participated in the process and were in a position to form a majority;
- involvement of representatives of the executive branch in the panel, including its chair (deputy Minister of Justice);
· the absence of pre-established and publicly available rules, criteria and evaluation methodology.
Applicable EU Legal Framework
Under Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), the European Union (EU) is founded on the value of the rule of law which binds both the Union and the Member States, including when the latter carries out national procedures that form part of EU decision-making processes. The nomination of candidates for European Prosecutor under Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 is such a procedure. While the final appointment is made at EU level (Council of the EU), the process is inextricably dependent on the integrity of the national selection stage.
In this context, the requirements under Article 14(2) of the Regulation that candidates be individuals “whose independence is beyond doubt” and possess the necessary qualifications must be understood as encompassing not only personal qualities, but also the objective integrity of the procedure through which candidates are selected.
The principles of transparency, equal treatment, and objective assessment are essential components of lawful administrative procedures under both EU law and national law. These principles are closely linked to the right to good administration stipulated for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. They require that decisions, including those affecting legal positions be taken through fair, impartial and properly reasoned procedures.
Legal Implications of the Identified Deficiencies in the Selection Procedure
The deficiencies identified in the national selection procedure are of a fundamental and structural nature and call into question the legality and credibility of the process as a whole. The claimed irregularities reveal a procedural framework that is incapable of ensuring an objective, transparent and independent assessment of candidates. The absence of clear, pre-established and publicly available evaluation criteria and methodology effectively removes any meaningful constraints on the exercise of discretion by the selection panel. In such circumstances, the process becomes inherently vulnerable to arbitrariness, inconsistency and subjectivity.
These concerns are exacerbated by the composition of the selection panel. Where members whose mandates have expired are in a position to form a decisive majority, this raises serious and well-founded doubts as to the legitimacy of the body and its capacity to exercise its functions independently. The continued exercise of powers beyond the constitutionally and legally defined term of office is, by its nature, liable to affect the perception and reality of independence, particularly in the context of high-level judicial or prosecutorial appointments.
The involvement of representatives of the executive branch in the composition and leadership of the selection panel reinforces these concerns. In procedures that are required to guarantee independence and political neutrality, the presence of actors linked to the executive creates a structural risk of undue influence, whether direct or indirect. Even in the absence of proven interference, such a configuration is sufficient to cast doubt on the impartiality of the process, as independence must not only exist, but also be seen to exist.
Taken together, these elements indicate that the procedure was not capable of ensuring an objective, transparent and depoliticised assessment of candidates. A selection process characterised by the absence of objective criteria, questionable institutional composition and insufficient safeguards against external influence cannot credibly produce candidates whose independence is “beyond doubt” within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939.
Publicly available information further gives rise to concerns regarding the integrity of the process. It has been reported by the media that the identities of the three candidates ultimately approved were known at least one day prior to the formal decision by the Ministry of Justice, suggesting a risk that the outcome may have been predetermined.[2]
While our position focuses on the procedure rather than on the personal integrity of individual candidates, it should be noted that information disclosed in the public domain has also raised concerns regarding alleged contacts between one of the shortlisted candidates and an individual described in the media and widely perceived in Bulgarian society as a broker of influence within the judicial system (Petyo “the Euro” Pertrov)[3]. Additionally, public reporting including in legal media[4] indicates that another candidate was heard by the Prosecutorial College of the Supreme Judicial Council in the context of an inquiry into connections between magistrates and another broker of influence – the murdered Martin Bozhanov (“The Notary”), during which he confirmed that Bozhanov had attended a social event of the Sofia Regional Prosecutor’s Office in 2021.
While such reports do not in themselves establish misconduct or result in formal findings or sanctions, they nonetheless give rise to legitimate doubts as to the perception of independence and integrity. In the context of a selection procedure that is required to ensure that candidates are “beyond doubt” in their independence, the existence of such publicly reported associations, particularly when not adequately identified, examined or transparently addressed within the selection process, further underscores the inability of that procedure to dispel reasonable doubts and to guarantee confidence in a credibility-proof outcome.
Implications for the EPPO and the EU Legal Order
Allowing a shortlist produced under such conditions to proceed would risk undermining not only the legitimacy of the national nomination, but also the credibility of the subsequent stages of the procedure at Union level. It may expose the final appointment to legal challenge, weaken public confidence in the EPPO, and create a broader risk of institutional reputational damage.
The present case highlights a broader structural principle: the legitimacy of Union institutions depends on the legality and integrity of the national procedures that contribute to their composition. Ensuring that such procedures comply with the requirements of transparency, independence and fairness is not merely a formal obligation, but a substantive guarantee of the rule of law under Article 2 TEU. Corrective actions aimed at addressing serious procedural deficiencies should therefore be understood as part of the normal functioning of a legal order based on the rule of law, rather than as an exception to it.
Ultimately, proceeding on the basis of a procedurally compromised selection would amount to prioritising procedural continuity over legality. More fundamentally, proceeding on the basis of a procedurally compromised selection risks normalising deficiencies in national processes that feed into EU decision-making. Both would be difficult to reconcile with the foundational value of the rule of law under Article 2 TEU and with the requirement that the functioning of Union institutions be grounded in procedures that are fair, transparent and free from undue influence. In this sense, the identified shortcomings do not merely affect the specific procedure in question, but raise broader concerns as to the safeguards necessary to ensure the integrity of appointments within the Union legal order.
In light of the above considerations, the undersigned organisations respectfully call on the relevant European institutions to:
Encourage the prompt conduct of a new, transparent and merit-based national selection procedure, capable of ensuring public confidence and full compliance with Union law;
Take into consideration the broader institutional context, including risks to the effective functioning and perceived independence of the EPPO, when determining the appropriate course of action;
Engage in a structured dialogue with the Bulgarian authorities, with a view to ensuring that any future nomination procedure is conducted in full compliance with the principles of the rule of law and best European standards;
Take due account of the integrity of the national selection process when assessing the current situation, including any substantiated concerns regarding its compliance with the requirements of transparency, independence and objectivity;
Respect the responsibility of Member States to ensure the legality of their national procedures;
Ensure that the application of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 preserves the requirement that candidates be “beyond doubt” in their independence, including where procedural deficiencies may affect the credibility of a shortlist.
Sincerely,
Access to Information Program
Anticorruption Fund Foundation
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives Foundation
Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights
EuroRights Foundation
Institute for Market Economy
[1] https://www.gov.bg/special/bg/prestsentar/zasedaniya-na-ms/dneven-red-na-zasedanie-na-ministerskiya-savet-na-08-04-2026-g
[2] For instance: https://www.segabg.com/hot/category-bulgaria/kandidat-za-evroprokuror-dano-veche-da-ne-se-reshava-na-divancheta-i-masi
[3] https://fakti.bg/razsledvania/1042096-boec-razkrihme-kak-raboti-modela-osemte-djudjeta
[4] https://news.lex.bg/седем-магистрати-се-кандидатираха-за/