EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.7.2021 SWD(2021) 703 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report







Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report







The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}



Abstract Reforms in Bulgaria in areas including justice and corruption have been first followed by the Commission through the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) and are currently followed under the Rule of Law Mechanism. In response to the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the Bulgarian authorities adopted a dedicated Action Plan covering issues in all four pillars. Judicial reform in Bulgaria has been a gradual process with important implications for judicial independence and public confidence, but challenges remain. A new law on the Prosecutor General and his/her deputies had entered into force. In the meantime, that same law has been challenged before the Constitutional Court, which declared it unconstitutional As a consequence, the challenge with the accountability and criminal liability of the Prosecutor General remains. Concerns related to the composition and functioning of the Supreme Judicial Council also remain. A reform on this matter had been proposed in a draft new Constitution but this was ultimately not adopted. The Inspector General and the Inspectors of the Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council continue their work despite their mandate ending in April 2020. The promotion regime within the judiciary raises concerns as appointments of judges to higher positions have not been carried out as per the ordinary procedure of open competition. Despite legislative efforts, digitalisation of justice is still lagging behind in practice. Efficiency of the administrative justice system is showing significant progress. The implementation of the institutional reforms on anti-corruption has been consolidated. The new anti-corruption strategy for the period 2021-2027 was approved, with a new set of priorities, namely strengthening capacity to combat corruption; increasing accountability of local authorities; and creating an environment against corruption capable of timely responses. Significant challenges remain concerning the effectiveness of measures related to the integrity of public administration, lobbying and whistleblowing protection, where no dedicated regulation exists. Despite the increased investigative activity and the reinforcement of resources, final convictions for high-profile cases of corruption remains low and a solid track-record of final convictions remains to be established in this respect. As regards media pluralism, the Bulgarian legal framework is based on a set of constitutional safeguards and legislative measures. New legislation has been adopted to transpose the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which aims to strengthen the independence of the media regulator, the Council for Electronic Media. Lack of transparency of media ownership remains a source of concern. The working environment and safety of journalists do not appear to have improved. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected media plurality and protection of journalists in economic terms, particularly when it comes to regional journalism, but no specific support measures have been put in place. Regarding checks and balances, the limited use of impact assessment and public consultation in the legislative process remains a concern, especially for draft laws proposed by the Parliament. Similar concerns also remain with the practice of introducing important changes through amendments to other unrelated legal acts, which bypass public consultation and impact assessment requirements. The emergency regime related to the COVID-19 pandemic is still in place. The resources of the National Human Rights Institutions have been increased. The draft law on foreign funding for Non-Governmental Organisations was abandoned but civic space in the country remains narrowed. The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) was established at the accession to the European Union in 2007 as a transitional measure to facilitate Bulgaria’s continued efforts to reform its judiciary and step up the fight against corruption and organised crime . In line with the decision setting up the mechanism and as underlined by the Council, the CVM ends when all the benchmarks applying to Bulgaria are satisfactorily met . The Commission’s latest CVM report, adopted in October 2019, recorded that Bulgaria had made a number of further commitments and concluded that the progress made under the CVM was sufficient to meet Bulgaria’s commitments made at the time of its accession to the EU. As the Commission also underlined, Bulgaria will need to continue working consistently on translating the commitments specified in the report into concrete legislation and on continued implementation. Any decision on the end of the CVM will take duly into account the position expressed by the Council and the European Parliament . I.Justice System The judicial system of the Republic of Bulgaria includes a total number of 182 courts which are ordinary and specialised. As a general rule, the ordinary courts hear cases in three instances, with the system of these courts comprising 113 district courts, 28 regional courts and 5 courts of appeal. The specialised courts include military, criminal and administrative courts. The Supreme Court of Cassation is the court of last instance in cases heard by ordinary, military and specialised criminal courts, while for administrative cases, the Supreme Administrative Court is the court of last instance. The judiciary also includes the Prosecutor’s Office, while the Constitutional Court of Bulgaria is not part of it. The Prosecutor’s Office has a unified structure and is headed by the Prosecutor General. Bulgaria participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Supreme Judicial Council (“SJC”) is the highest administrative authority in the Bulgarian judiciary. It is responsible for managing the judiciary and ensuring its independence. Judges, prosecutors and investigators are appointed, promoted, transferred and dismissed by their respective chamber (Judges’ or Prosecutors’) of the Supreme Judicial Council. The Supreme Bar Council is an independent and self-governing body established by law . Independence The level of perceived judicial independence in Bulgaria remains low among the general public and average among companies, and has decreased slightly compared to 2020. Only 31% among the general public consider it to be ‘fairly or very good’. The level of perceived independence among companies remains average, with 43% considering it to be ‘fairly or very good’ . The level of perceived judicial independence has remained consistently low among the general public during the last five years. Among companies, the level of perceived judicial independence used to be very low until 2019 and ever since it remains average despite slight fluctuations. The new law concerning the accountability and criminal liability of the Prosecutor General and his or her deputies has been declared unconstitutional and challenges remain. The lack of a possibility for an effective criminal investigation concerning the Prosecutor General and his or her deputies has been a long-standing issue which was raised not only by the European Commission but also by the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe . The combination of the powers of the Prosecutor General together with his position in the Supreme Judicial Council results in a considerable influence within the Prosecutor’s Office, potentially in the Supreme Judicial Council (both in the Prosecutorial Council and in the Plenary) and within the magistracy. On 29 January 2021, the Parliament approved a law concerning the execution of the Kolevi judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, establishing a new framework for any investigation against the Prosecutor General and/or his/her deputies. The new mechanism entrusted a special prosecutor with any investigation against a Prosecutor General and/or his or her deputies. Any refusal by the special prosecutor to open an investigation would have been open to judicial review before the Specialised Criminal Court at first instance. Following some of the suggestions made by the Council of Europe, the new law provided for the appointment of the special prosecutor by the Plenary of the Supreme Judicial Council instead of its Prosecutorial Chamber. On 10 February 2021, the President of the Republic challenged the constitutionality of the new law before the Constitutional Court. Consequently, the Plenary of the SJC decided to suspend the procedure for selection of the special prosecutor awaiting the decision of the Constitutional Court. On 11 May 2021, the Constitutional Court delivered a decision with which declared unconstitutional the provisions challenged by the President of the Republic, consequently considering the whole mechanism unconstitutional. Furthermore, following a recommendation from the Commission, on 23 February 2021, the Bulgarian authorities asked a new opinion of the Venice Commission on this law. However, due to the Constitutional court decision, the expected opinion will not be issued. A number of other issues concerning this law have been identified by the Council of Europe. These stem from the abovementioned considerable influence of the Prosecutor General, which may lead to control on the candidacies for the special prosecutor and on his appointment. On 11 March 2021, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe stressed the importance of reducing the influence of the Prosecutor General within the Prosecutor’s Office, any potential influence in the SJC and within the magistracy, so to allow for the implementation of an effective investigation mechanism, including by extending the judicial review to any prosecutorial refusals to open investigations. The absence of judicial review against a decision of a prosecutor not to open an investigation raises concerns. On 11 March 2021, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has reiterated its recommendation regarding the introduction of a judicial review for prosecutorial refusals to open an investigation, together with arrangements to avoid an excessive additional workload for courts and prosecutors. This recommendation has been made in the context of the Council of Europe enhanced supervision mechanism triggered following the European Court of Human Rights ruling, which considers the ineffectiveness of criminal investigations a systemic problem. The concerns related to the composition and functioning of the Supreme Judicial Council remain. Тhe situation where the overall number of judges elected by their peers does not amount to a majority remains unchanged . Furthermore, as explained in the previous paragraph, the Prosecutor General continues to play a decisive role in the Prosecutors’ chamber and preserves significant influence on the Plenary and potentially also on the Judges’ chamber , since lay members elected to the Judges’ chamber by Parliament may also come from the ranks of the prosecutors . Voting practice demonstrates the limited influence in decision-making of the peer-elected judges in the SJC and the potential influence of the Prosecutor General over the SJC. Notwithstanding progress made through earlier reforms, the situation of the SJC continues to be a source of concern for the Council of Europe and various stakeholders . Though reforms have resulted in a more balanced composition of the SJC, the involvement of prosecutors, and the Prosecutor General in particular, in the governance of judges continues to raise concerns . The attempted amendments to the Constitution changing the composition of the SJC, tabled in September 2020, were intended to partially address these concerns. Addressing the issue regarding the SJC’s composition has become a more pressing matter because the system in place would impact the future elections for members of the SJC, due to the forthcoming end of their current mandates, and would also impact other important positions within the judiciary. Concerning the functioning of the SJC, a positive development has been the introduction of an online register of positions taken by the SJC, including its Plenary and the two chambers, against threats to judicial independence. However, the register covers only cases in which the SJC or other bodies of the judiciary have taken a position and not all cases of attacks against judicial independence, which some stakeholders consider as insufficient. In addition, stakeholders have also pointed to cases where some of the positions taken by the SJC are characterised as contrary to the members of the judiciary itself. The Action Plan adopted to address certain challenges expressed in the 2020 Rule of Law Report covers, among others, judicial reform. On 6 November 2020, the Government issued an Action Plan in order to complete the reform on the accountability and criminal liability of the Prosecutor General, to improve the functioning and composition of the Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council, to revise the criteria allowing for additional remuneration of magistrates, and to address challenges related to judicial independence.

A working group has been established on a possible reform of the composition and functioning of the Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council. As part of the previously mentioned Government’s Action Plan, in December 2020, the Minister of Justice established a working group tasked with drafting legislative amendments to address the Inspectorate related issues identified as a concern by the 2020 Rule of Law report and by the Venice Commission . Currently, the Inspectorate checks the activity of the judiciary, carries out checks on the integrity and potential conflicts of interest of magistrates, and proposes the opening of disciplinary proceedings regarding magistrates to the SJC. The Inspectorate consists of an Inspector General and ten Inspectors, who are independent and elected by the National Assembly . The mandate of the working group includes a review of integrity checks, disciplinary liability of magistrates, creation of deontological prevention system, property and interests declarations as well as formalising the current practice that allows the Parliament to appoint the Inspector General and the Inspectors from among the persons nominated by the plenaries of the Supreme Courts and professional organisations. However, there is no specific timeline for the finalisation of the amendments and the concerns related to judicial independence and the exercising of pressure on judges, raised by the 2020 Rule of Law Report and the Venice Commission, remain. The Inspector General and the Inspectors continue to work on the basis of a mandate that has expired , under the principle of continuity . To be noted that other institutions are also in this situation: five other independent and supervisory authorities operate on the basis of an expired mandate. In other cases, changes in the rules of election and mandate allowed for the automatic re-election of their current directors. The promotion regime of magistrates still raises concerns. Magistrates are normally promoted after passing a competition. However, in practice, no competition process for promotion of judges has been completed for more than three years. In addition to the normal promotion process through a competition, there is a promotion of lay members of the SJC at the end of their mandate. The plenary of the Supreme Court of Cassation challenged the constitutionality of the new law before the Constitutional Court considering it was a case of automatic promotion. On 11 May 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled that the law providing a promotion of lay members of the SJC at the end of their mandate is constitutional because the SJC is still involved in the decision. Stakeholders criticised the absence of regular competitions for promotion and the promotion mechanism of the SJC members. The absence of regular competitions has resulted in an increasing number of secondments. In particular, stakeholders reported that, since 2017, the number of seconded judges has been increasing as well as the number of long secondments (with consent), sometimes for up to 90-100 months or more, in order to fill in higher-ranking positions. European standards highlight promotion based on merit and secondment happening with consent and on a temporary basis, used only in exceptional circumstances. The situation where there are no regular merit-based promotions may affect judicial independence. Concerns have also been raised in the context of the envisaged judicial map reform where judges from district courts, which would become part of regional courts, would be automatically promoted to a higher position.Since the discussions are at an early stage there is scope to have a wide consultation on the reform of the judicial map. Furthermore, it is important that any reform of the judicial map is based on a thorough assessment of its likely effects, and preserves judicial independence and access to justice. The SJC is modifying the criteria for deciding on additional remuneration. In order to address the Council of Europe concerns regarding the broad discretionary powers of the Courts Presidents for allocating additional remuneration of magistrates, two working groups have been set up. The draft rules were prepared in March 2020, however, they have not been discussed in the SJC plenary and have not been made public. It is therefore too early to assess whether the identified concerns have been addressed in light of the recommendations of the Council of Europe. It is important that any amendment takes into account such recommendations. The online register on magistrate’s membership in professional organisations has been removed. The requirement for magistrates to declare membership in professional organisations was repealed in 2020. At the time of the publication of the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the online database of magistrates participating in professional associations was still available on the website of the SJC. Meanwhile, the authorities have addressed this concern and, since 14 January 2021, the register is no longer available online. Quality Court fees have been reduced for claims introduced online. Amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure provided for a reduction by 15 percent of the fee due when the application for protection and assistance has been performed electronically. However, the measure is still too limited to substantially lower court fees to initiate proceedings because it concerns only electronically submitted files and not all cases. Moreover, this measure does not concern the threshold for legal aid, nor does it exempt legal aid recipients from court fees . The impact of the reform is also jeopardised by the lack of digitalisation. Furthermore, specific concerns regarding limited access to justice for women and girls have been raised by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Amendments were introduced to allow for the use of videoconferencing in civil, administrative and criminal proceedings. On 17 December 2020, amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, Administrative Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Code were adopted. They allow for the use of videoconferencing in civil and administrative proceedings, and in criminal proceedings for the collection of evidence. However, in practice it appears that the system is not implemented yet. Further improvements have been announced through two projects in the context of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan of Bulgaria. Notwithstanding these reforms and plans, currently it is not possible for court staff and judges to work securely remotely, and secure electronic communication is available only for communication between courts but not with other legal professionals. While it is possible to access electronic files for ongoing and closed cases and to receive information online about court fees, it is still not possible to initiate proceedings online, to file an application for legal aid online and the official court documents cannot be served electronically . The European Social Fund funded project (2016-2020) “Development of a Model for Optimization of the Judicial Map of Bulgarian Courts and Prosecutor’s Offices and of a Unified Information System for Courts”, covers a total of seven activities, including two specifically linked to digitalisation and e-justice. Concerns have been raised regarding the implementation of Unified Court Information System (UCIS) in the absence of a full digitalisation process . The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the shortcomings of the country’s judicial system in the area of digitalisation of justice. During the state of emergency , for one month the processing of court cases was suspended, with the exception of urgent cases . Once the state of emergency was declared by the Council of Ministers on 13 March 2020, the Judges’ College of the SJC adopted a new organisation of work in courts to limit contagion. However, remote hearings have been conducted in very limited cases on the initiative of specific courts, and remote working has been an exception. Financial and human resources of the Specialised Criminal Court have been increased. The Specialised Criminal Court of first instance, which had been experiencing issues related to lack of human or financial resources, has been allocated two additional positions for judges. This is a positive development which addressed a concern raised in the Bulgarian country chapter of the 2020 Rule of Law Report. The reported investment made by the Government in the justice system over the past years has been increasing . A new legislation has amended the regime applicable to law firms. In February 2021, amendments to the Bar Act were introduced, making possible the setting up of sole proprietor lawyer’s companies, and removed the ban on lawyers serving as managers and executive directors of commercial companies. These amendments create the opportunity for the setting up of more law firms, which would in turn increase the competition between lawyers and could allow for greater access to legal practitioners. Efficiency The efficiency of administrative justice keeps improving. The performance of administrative courts regarding the length of proceedings is among the most efficient in the EU. However, the lack of data for the efficiency of litigious and non-litigious civil and commercial cases (first and second instance courts) does not permit a proper evaluation of the overall efficiency of the judicial system . When it comes to the length of proceedings at the Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria continues to perform well in comparison to other Member States . Furthermore, as regards efficiency in specific areas of EU law, proceedings are resolved swiftly in the area of electronic communication and consumer protection. II.Anti- corruption framework Following the comprehensive reform of 2017 and 2018, Bulgaria established the Commission for Counteracting Corruption and Illegal Assets Forfeiture (hereinafter the Anti-corruption Commission). This Commission is mainly responsible for both the preventive and the repressive actions regarding high-profile corruption, keeping and managing the public register of asset declarations, monitoring and advising on issues related to conflict of interests as well as the confiscation of illegally acquired assets. It also performs institutional corruption risk assessments in order to develop tailor-made institutions’ integrity action plans. Following this assessment, the recommendations delivered to public institutions are binding and follow-up actions are to be regularly reported to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The competence for high-level corruption cases was transferred to the Specialised Criminal Courts and the investigation of such cases is carried out under the supervision of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office. The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in the public sector remains high. In the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Bulgaria scores 44/100 and ranks 19th in the European Union and 69th globally. This perception has been relatively stable over the past five years. The Anti-Corruption Commission has further streamlined its organisational structure. It rationalised financial resources, which were increased in early 2021. It also continued to increase its staff, including through new recruitments of inspectors in the directorate responsible for combating corruption. In 2020, the Anti-Corruption Commission confiscated EUR 6.2 million of illegally acquired property, while 30 individuals were sanctioned for conflicts of interest. Compared to 2019, there has been a decrease (of about 20%) in the number of performed inspections as well as in the reports received on alleged violations related to corruption. The new anti-corruption strategy for 2021-2027 was adopted in March 2021. Drawing on lessons from the previous strategy, new priorities have been established as regards high-risk sectors, including strengthening capacity to combat corruption; increasing accountability of local authorities; and creating an environment against corruption capable of timely responses. The strategy also contains a list of relevant goals, performance indicators, and responsible implementing entities. The Action Plan adopted in November 2020 to address certain challenges expressed in the 2020 Rule of Law Report also covers issues related to corruption. The Action Plan aims to improve investigations and to continue reinforcing operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. Moreover, as announced in the Action Plan, a reflection is ongoing to improve the efficiency of investigations and trials. On 30 March 2021, a working-group was tasked with recommending changes to the Criminal Code as to improve the efficiency of investigations and trials. Despite increased investigative activity, results in final high-level corruption convictions remain low with no solid track-record of final convictions. In 2020, 33 decisions of the Supreme Court of Cassation on overall corruption cases were issued. In 19 cases the decisions were confirmed, in 8 cases the acts of the appellate court were revoked and returned for new consideration, in four cases the decisions of the appellate instance were amended and in two of them the criminal proceedings were resumed. On 17 December 2020, OLAF recommended to recover nearly EUR 6 million after alleged abuse of power at a Bulgarian ministry. Finally, a solid track record of final convictions in high-level corruption cases remains to be established. There is limited evidence as to the effectiveness of measures related to the integrity of the public administration. The enforcement of the code of conduct of civil servants is under the responsibility of institutional disciplinary commissions within each public service. Development of ethical standards of conduct of senior officials (including ministers and mayors), systems for verification of integrity and assistance for their implementation fall under the purview of the Anti-Corruption Commission. Ethics provisions for members of the Parliament are laid down in the rules of organisation and procedure of the National Assembly , whose implementation is the responsibility of a committee of the National Assembly. Whereas the legal provisions are in place, there is no factual evidence of their implementation or effectiveness . Concerning members of the judiciary, there is neither evidence of anti-corruption training being provided nor of an advisory committee having been set up for matters related to ethics. Concerning the police force, since 2021, the inspectorate of the Ministry of Interior has deployed a new system for video recording of actions by security officers and road patrols. Evidence on breaches of integrity rules, including corruption, collected through a video recording instrument, have been used to discipline, sanction or convict police officers from different departments . A verification system for asset declaration and conflict of interest is in place. In 2020, the Anti-Corruption Commission conducted 21,587 verifications of declarations of property and interests of persons holding senior public positions (compared to 9,900 verifications conducted in 2019), including those of persons who participated in the local elections. The declarations are publicly accessible through the Register of Senior Public Office Holders on the webpage of the Anti-Corruption Commission. Conflict of interest and incompatibility measures for civil servants (applicable to the employees of the central and local government administration) are defined in the Civil Servants Act, the Labour Code, the Ministry of Interior Act, the State Agency for National Security Act, the Customs Act and other organic laws.

Lobbying still lacks dedicated regulation. Although regulation of lobbying is part of the national action plan in response to the 2020 Rule of Law Report, concrete steps forward remain to be taken. There is no specific law on protection for whistleblowers. However, existing criminal legislation, applicable to witnesses, provide mutatis mutandis protection to individuals reporting instances of crimes, including corruption. Anonymous complaints are neither allowed nor protected, hence the Anti-Corruption Commission cannot use the information received from unknown individuals or undisclosed sources. The authorities have taken some measures to counteract corruption risks related to the COVID-19 pandemic measures. These measures cover sectors with high corruption risk, such as healthcare and public procurement. Urgent public procurement procedures were deployed, with significant use of negotiated procedures without publication and simplified procedures (i.e. with single vendor or vendor with neither previously proven experience nor corporate capacity for the specific contract). As a part of the COVID-19 pandemic coping policy approach, representatives of the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Health and control authorities meet periodically to exchange operational information and decide on measures to be taken, including countering risk of corruption. A separate unit has been set up in the Ministry of Interior General Directorate Combating Organised Crime to counteract corruption in health care III.Media Pluralism and Media Freedom The Bulgarian legal framework is based on a set of constitutional safeguards and legislative measures, such as the Radio and Television Act . The Access to Public Information Act regulates access to public information and the re-use of public sector information. The media regulator, the Council for Electronic Media (CEM), is set up by and functions in compliance with the Radio and Television Act. A new legislation has been adopted to strengthen the independence of the media regulator – CEM - and steps are taken to increase its resources. The National Assembly adopted in December 2020 the Act amending the Radio and Television Act, to transpose the revised Audiovisual media Services Directive (AVMSD). This will enhance the independence of the CEM, particularly by ensuring that it will follow the public interest, and takes actions for the protection of the freedom and pluralism of speech and information and the independence of media service providers. The increase of EUR 574 867 (BGN 1,12 million) to the budget of CEM, foreseen in the 2021 State Budget, aims to address the concerns raised in the 2020 Rule of Law Report regarding CEM’s lack of resources necessary to perform its tasks effectively . Although this is a welcomed development, recently in March and April 2021, the Government decreased the budget of the regulator. Moreover, it remains to be seen if the planned increase in the budget will be adequate in view of the additional tasks linked to the implementation of the revised AVMSD . The lack of transparency of media ownership remains a source of concern. Despite the regular updates of the CEM public register of linear and non-linear media services referred to in the 2020 Rule of Law report, data on media ownership is still not fully disclosed to the public. Some stakeholders have raised concerns that the issue of media transparency may be aggravated by significant news media concentration that took place in 2020 . The lack of regulatory safeguards for fair and transparent allocation of state advertising continues to raise concerns. Furthermore, stakeholders have highlighted that transparency in the allocation of public funding to media outlets remains problematic. Political interference in the media continues to be a pressing issue. Lack of legislation preventing politicians and parties from owning media outlets appears to be an important factor, and a higher risk in this regard was registered in the TV and newspaper sectors. The authorities have presented an Action Plan including this issue as one of the priorities in the Bulgarian National Development Programme 2030. However, no concrete measures have been specified yet. The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected media pluralism and no measures supporting directly the media sector have been put in place. The pandemic has affected media pluralism and protection of journalists mainly in economic terms, due to salary cuts and delayed payments, with a severe impact on regional journalism, as highlighted by stakeholders . It is reported that some of the smaller and regional media went bankrupt as a consequence of the pandemic. The working environment and safety of journalists continue to raise concerns . Access to public information remains difficult and journalists continue facing political pressure and self-censorship . Six new alerts regarding attacks and harassment of journalists were registered on the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists since the last report. This includes one alert concerning the case of a journalist who was allegedly beaten by the police and detained for 24 hours, which the Prosecutor’s office refused to investigate. The other alerts regard attacks on and harassment of journalists, and other media actors as well as abusive lawsuits. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic led to the suspension of work on the roadmap, sent in March 2020 to the Bulgarian authorities by Reporters without Borders, to address the press freedom concerns in Bulgaria, including aspects such as journalists’ safety, access to information, allocation of state advertising and media funding. IV.Other Institutional Issues related to Checks and Balances Bulgaria is a representative democratic republic with a directly elected President, a unicameral National Assembly and a Constitutional Court in charge of constitutional review of laws. The National Assembly has a final decision-making power when adopting laws . Bulgaria has two national human rights institutions. First, the Ombudsperson is an independent constitutional body, elected by the National Assembly and tasked with the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Second, the Commission for Protection against Discrimination is a body that implements policies in the spheres of gender equality and non-discrimination. The establishment of a post-monitoring mechanism is yet to be finalised. As reported in the CVM report of October 2019 and recalled in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the Government decided to establish an additional, more comprehensive mechanism for domestic monitoring centred in a Coordination and Cooperation Council (‘post-monitoring council’). The aim of the Council is the assessment of Bulgaria’s progress in judicial reform, fight against corruption and organised crime in an independent, transparent, and objective manner . The activity of the Council would start once the CVM formally comes to an end. However, the establishment of the Civic Council – a body within the Coordination and Cooperation Council that includes members of civil society and for which a selection procedure had been launched – has been suspended, awaiting the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court on an appeal on the matter. The Action Plan adopted in response to the 2020 rule of law report includes measures seeking to address some identified challenges on the checks and balances This includes steps to increase funds for the National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), and to improve the decision-making process. For the latter, two initiatives were envisaged, the creation of a Guidance for ex-post impact assessment and conducting ex-post impact assessments of key laws. A recent study confirms the limited use of public consultation and impact assessment, especially for legislation proposed by Members of Parliament. A study conducted by the National Centre for Parliamentary Research, part of the National Assembly, examines the lawmaking activity of the National Assembly from April 2017 to March 2021. The main findings confirm the increased number of draft laws proposed by Members of Parliament, without compulsory stakeholder consultation, impact assessment and compatibility check with EU legislation that applies to draft legislation proposed by the Government. The authorities committed to adhere to the recently reinforced rules and to continue the practice of the Government of submitting draft laws to the Parliament with a full or partial impact assessment . However, these efforts to improve the quality of impact assessment and public consultations do not cover the draft laws proposed by Members of Parliament. Moreover, even though the drafting of an impact assessment is a mandatory step in the legislative process since 2016, legislative intervention is based only in a limited number of the drafts on scientific expertise. To address this, the authorities committed to start conducting ex-post impact assessments of key legislation, for which Guidance was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 3 December 2020. Furthermore, public consultation and stakeholders’ feedback are also an integral part of the process. However, in most of the proposed draft legislation there is no information on public consultations or discussions organised by the Members of Parliament or the Government to determine the problems and reasons for the adoption of the draft law. Furthermore, the reasons for adoption of a law included the views of some or all stakeholders in very few of the proposed draft laws. The practice of introducing important legislative amendments through amendments to other legal acts continues to raise concerns. The legislative technique of using the transitional provisions of one legal act to introduce major amendments in another unrelated act has continued. This confirms the concerns raised in the 2020 Rule of Law Report as such amendments bypass the requirements for public consultation and impact assessment. Moreover, another trend, which was identified in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, and continues to raise concerns, is the legislative practice of adopting major amendments between the first and second reading in the National Assembly without public consultation. The emergency situation regime related to the COVID-19 pandemic is still in place. Following the adoption of the ‘state of emergency’ regime from 13 March to 13 May 2020 , on 12 May 2020, an amendment to the Health Act was adopted which introduced a new emergency regime (‘emergency epidemic situation’) . On 13 May 2020, the Council of Ministers, on a proposal by the Minister of Health, decided to declare an emergency epidemic situation for the duration of one month, which has been regularly renewed and is still in force until [31 July 2021]. This new emergency regime was reviewed by the Constitutional Court , which decided on 23 July 2020 that the regime is compliant with the Constitution . The National Assembly adopted rules to ensure continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to adapt to the situation, the National Assembly continued its regular work and on 6 November 2020 adopted rules, adding the option of videoconference participation in plenary meetings for Members of Parliament who are placed under mandatory isolation or quarantine due to COVID-19. On 23 November 2020, 54 Members of Parliament challenged the constitutionality of these rules before the Constitutional court, which considered them compatible with the Constitution. Financial and human resources of the National Human Rights Institutions have been increased. There have been increases in the budgets of the Ombudsperson and the Commission for Protection Against Discrimination. The Bulgarian authorities informed that the budget forecast over the period 2021–2023 foresees an increase of 10% of the personnel funds for both institutions. Moreover, in view of improving the capacity of the institution of the Ombudsperson, the draft budget envisages additional expenditure.

The draft legislation on increased transparency of foreign funding for NGOs has not been further pursued. The draft law that was tabled on 3 July 2020 and aimed at imposing new obligations on non-profit organisations had raised concerns among stakeholders as regards its compliance with EU law . Following the publication of the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the draft law has not been further discussed. Nevertheless, the civic space remains narrowed, and in some occasions, members of the civil society appear to be under pressure, through smear campaigns, intimidation and negative narrative. In November 2020, at the occasion of the Universal Periodic Review, Bulgaria received several recommendations related to the need to improve civic space and to address intimidation and threats.



Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation . Bulgarian Centre for Not-for-profit Law (2021), Contribution from the Bulgarian Centre for Not-for-profit Law for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Bulgarian Donation Forum (2021), Contribution from the Bulgarian Donation Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Bulgarian Government (2021), Input from Bulgaria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Bulgarian Government (2021), Draft National Corruption Prevention and Counteraction Strategy (2021-2027) ( https://www.strategy.bg/PublicConsultations/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=5828 ). Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (2021), Contribution from the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives Foundation (2021), Contribution from the Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives Foundation for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021 – Report on Bulgaria. CEPEJ (2013), Revised Guidelines on the Creation of Judicial Maps to Support Access to Justice within a Quality Judicial System ( https://rm.coe.int/european-commission-for-the-efficiency-of-justice-cepej-revised-guidel/168078c492 ). CEPEJ (2020), Study on the functioning of the judicial systems in the EU Member States. Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Bulgaria ( https://monitor.civicus.org/country/bulgaria/ ). Constitutional Court Case No. 15 of 2020 - http://www.constcourt.bg/bg/Cases/Details/585 Constitutional Court Decision No. 6 of 2021 on Case No. 15 of 2020. http://www.constcourt.bg/bg/Acts/GetHtmlContent/96c8d204-d2eb-4785-beac-7133ed3b6cd2 Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, ( https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/bulgaria ). Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2019), Decision CM/Notes/1362/H46-6. Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2019), Interim Resolution, CM/ResDH(2019)367.

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2020), Decision CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377bis/H46-9. Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2021), Decision CM/Notes/1398/H46-6 of 9-11 March, ( https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680a1abfa ). Council of Europe: Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (2021), Memorandum H/Exec(2021)9. Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2010), Report on the Independence of the Judicial System Part I: The Independence of Judges (CDL-AD(2010)004). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2017), Bulgaria - Opinion on the judicial system act (CDL-AD(2017)018). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2019), Bulgaria - Opinion on draft amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and the Judicial System Act, concerning criminal investigations against top magistrates (CDL-AD(2019)031). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2020), Bulgaria - Urgent interim opinion on the draft new constitution opinion (CDL-AD(2020)035). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2020), Poland - Joint Urgent Opinion of the Venice Commission and the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of Europe on amendments to the Law on the Common courts, the Law on the Supreme court and some other Laws, (CDL-AD(2020)017). Council of the European Union (2017), Council conclusions on the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism ( https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/20171212-st15587_en.pdf ). Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v. Hungary, C-78/18 Council of Ministers (2020), Guidance for ex-post impact assessment. ( https://www.strategy.bg/Publications/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&categoryId=&Id=320&y=&m=&d ). Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. European Commission (2019), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Bulgaria under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, COM(2019)498 European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report - The rule of law situation in the European Union European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Commission: European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF recommends recovery of nearly €6 million after alleged abuse of power at Bulgarian ministry- EU press release No. 04/2021 ( https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/media-corner/news/01-02-2021/olaf-recommends-recovery-nearly-eu6-million-after-alleged-abuse-power_en ). European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 5 February 2010, Kolevi v. Bulgaria European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2019), Independence and Accountability of the Judiciary – ENCJ Survey on the independence of judges. European Parliament (2020), Resolution on the rule of law and fundamental rights in Bulgaria, (2020/2793(RSP).

European Parliament, Member states must stop selling EU passports immediately, MEPs demand- Press release 22 October 2020. ( https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20201016IPR89564/member-states-must-stop-selling-eu-passports-immediately-meps-demand ). Finland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union (2019), Presidency report ( https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14856-2019-INIT/en/pdf ). Fundamental Rights Agency (2020), Coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak in the EU Fundamental Rights Implications ( https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/bulgaria-report-covid-19-april-2020_en.pdf ). Fundamental Rights Agency (2021), Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights in Bulgaria. GRECO (2015), Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation report on Bulgaria on corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors: ( https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806c983f ). Institute for Market Economics (IME) (2021), Study on secondment of magistrates ( https://ime.bg/bg/articles/komandirovane-na-magistrati-ili-kadruvane-tihomylkom/#ixzz6pUEALbxu ). Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (2021), Contribution from Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Ministry of Finance (2019), National Development Programme Bulgaria 2030 ( https://www.minfin.bg/upload/46720/National%2BDevelopment%2BProgramme%2BBULGARIA%2B2030.pdf ). National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria (2017), Rules of organisation and procedure of the National Assembly ( https://www.parliament.bg/en/rulesoftheorganisations ). National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria (2020), Decision to declare state of emergency- 13 March 2020 ( https://www.parliament.bg/bg/desision/ID/157374 ). National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria (2020), Decision to extend the state of emergency – 3 April 2020 ( https://www.parliament.bg/bg/desision/ID/157396 ). Press release concerning the open letter to the SJC against the chosen model for judicial map reform signed by 500 judges. - https://news.lex.bg/564 Press release from the Supreme Court of Cassation on the National Institute for Justice Management - http://www.vks.bg/novini/nip.html Reporters without Borders – Bulgaria, ( https://rsf.org/en/bulgaria ). Supreme Court of Cassation of Bulgaria (2019), Annual Report 2020. Supreme Court of Cassation of Bulgaria (2021), Contribution from the Supreme Court of Cassation of Bulgaria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report The Supreme Bar Council criticism about the judicial map reform - https://www.vas.bg/bg/a/predlozheniyata-za-reforma-na-sdebnata-karta . Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. U.S Department of the Treasury (2021), Specially designated nationals list update- 2 June 2021 ( https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/recent-actions/20210602 ). UN OHCHR Regional Office for Europe (2021), Contribution from the UN OHCHR Regional Office for Europe for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.

Annex II – Country visit to Bulgaria The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2021 with: ·Access to Information Programme ·Administration Modernization Directorate ·Anti-Corruption Council ·Anti-corruption Fund Foundation ·Association of European Journalists – Bulgaria ·Association of Prosecutors in Bulgaria ·Audio-Visual regulator – CEM ·Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives ·Bulgarian Judges Association ·Centre for the Study of Democracy ·Commission for countering corruption and for forfeiture of illegally acquired assets ·For the truth project ·Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council ·Institute for Market Economics ·Ministry of Culture

·Ministry of Interior ·Ministry of Justice ·National Council for Journalistic Ethics ·Office of the Prosecutor General ·Sofia Bar Association ·Specialised Criminal Court ·Specialised Prosecutor's Office ·Supreme Bar Council ·Supreme Court of Cassation ·Supreme Judicial Council ·Union of Publishers in Bulgaria * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: ·Amnesty International ·Center for Reproductive Rights ·CIVICUS ·Civil Liberties Union for Europe ·Civil Society Europe ·Conference of European Churches ·EuroCommerce