At the opening of its first working plenary session, Bulgaria’s new parliament rejected proposals to establish two separate investigative committees targeting the declared assets of Delyan Peevski and the influence of the so-called “Capital circle” linked to Ivo Prokopiev. The decisions immediately set the tone for a tense start to the legislative term, marked by sharp political divisions and criticism from both opposition and ruling majority representatives.
Further reading: DPS Pushes Parliamentary Probe into “Capital” Circle and Oligarch Influence in Bulgaria
The proposal for a commission on Peevski’s assets was initiated by Democratic Bulgaria (DB) and supported by “We Continue the Change” (PP) and Revival. However, it failed to gain approval after a large number of deputies from Rumen Radev’s Progressive Bulgaria (PB) chose to abstain, effectively blocking its creation. A parallel proposal to investigate Prokopiev and the “Capital circle,” submitted by the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS), was also rejected under similar voting dynamics.
According to the final tally, 48 MPs voted in favor of the Peevski-related commission, 21 were against, and 159 abstained. A request for a repeat vote, supported by DB deputy chairman Yordan Ivanov, was unsuccessful.
During the debate, Bozhidar Bozanov of DB criticized the outcome, arguing that parliamentary oversight mechanisms were essential for accountability. “The chamber was given a mandate to dismantle the Peevski-Borissov model and the committees are a key tool for this,” he said, warning that institutional oversight was being weakened.
Opposition deputies also expressed frustration over the abstentions, with Ivaylo Mirchev rejecting the tone of the parliamentary majority. “Don’t talk to me like old communists about our National Assembly,” he said, responding to statements made by PB representatives.
From Progressive Bulgaria’s side, Anton Kutev defended the decision, insisting that parliament should not be used for targeted investigations. “We will not adopt laws to resolve private cases,” he stated, adding that there is a legal procedure for determining security protection for individuals and that this responsibility belongs to competent state bodies, not lawmakers.
Kutev emphasized that the National Assembly should focus on strengthening institutions rather than initiating politically driven probes. “The National Assembly does not remove anyone’s security,” he said, adding that such decisions must remain within the authority of designated state services.
His remarks sparked further debate, particularly after he declared that PB would instead prioritize institutional reform and rule-of-law enforcement. “We will force the institutions to work quickly, efficiently and in the interest of the citizens,” Kutev said, describing the party’s approach as rooted in legality and governance rather than confrontation.
In a symbolic move highlighted during the same session, PB announced that office 222A in parliament, previously associated with Peevski and once used for displays of political memorabilia, would be transformed into a reading and museum space. The change was presented as a rejection of what Kutev described as spaces used for political self-promotion.
“It will no longer be used to polish the personal ego of overestimated party greats,” he said, adding that the space would instead serve as a reminder of institutional accountability.
Despite PB’s justification, critics interpreted the abstention on the commissions as political avoidance. Velislav Velichkov of PP said the outcome contradicted earlier promises to challenge entrenched political influence networks. He also questioned the absence of some political figures during the vote, suggesting discomfort around the issue.
Meanwhile, GERB maintained a neutral stance, neither supporting nor opposing either of the proposed commissions, continuing a pattern of non-commitment on the contested cases.
Shortly after the vote, parliament also rejected a separate proposal by Revival to hold a hearing on a landslide crisis affecting the Pamporovo-Smolyan road, further underscoring the session’s procedural tensions.
Additional criticism came from opposition figures who argued that the rejection of both commissions signaled reluctance to confront issues of corruption and influence. Political analyst Toncho Kraevski suggested that both sides of the debate were engaging in reciprocal accusations without sufficient institutional capacity to resolve them, noting that unresolved disputes over influence often turn parliamentary proceedings into political standoffs.
Within PB itself, MP Petar Vitanov clarified that the party had not sought external political backing for its positions and emphasized the importance of maintaining structured parliamentary dialogue despite disagreements.
As the session concluded, parliament formally established a temporary committee on procedural rules for the National Assembly, which passed with broad support, indicating that while investigative initiatives stalled, institutional organization continued to move forward.