The Primacy of EU Law in Bulgaria After CJEU’s Judgment in Case C‑56/25: A Thorny Path Ahead

Key Takeaways

• CJEU upheld EU law primacy despite Bulgarian procedural rule
• 2023 reform introduced individual constitutional complaints, creating hierarchy conflict
• Bulgarian Constitutional Court may ignore CJEU references, risking legal clashes
• Amendments require grand national assembly, unlikely soon
• Judges' limited EU law familiarity hampers primacy enforcement

Summary

On 12 February 2026 the Court of Justice of the EU issued its judgment in Case C‑56/25, confirming that EU law retains primacy over national legislation even when Bulgaria’s Constitutional Court procedural rules require a prior constitutional assessment. The ruling arose from a preliminary reference by Sofia City Court, which faced a “chicken‑or‑egg” dilemma over whether to first challenge a criminal provision’s constitutionality before asking the CJEU about its compatibility with EU law. The decision highlights tensions introduced by Bulgaria’s 2023 constitutional reform that created an individual constitutional complaint mechanism, leaving the hierarchy of norms unsettled. Analysts warn that without constitutional amendment by a grand national assembly, repeated clashes between Bulgarian courts and EU law are likely.

Pulse Analysis

The Court of Justice of the EU’s February 2026 decision in Case C‑56/25 serves as a litmus test for the resilience of EU supremacy in a member state whose constitutional architecture has been reshaped by recent reforms. By reaffirming that Articles 267 TFEU and the principle of primacy remain operative, the CJEU signaled its willingness to intervene even when national procedural rules, such as Bulgaria’s Article 18(3) of the Constitutional Court’s procedural code, appear to complicate the referral process. This stance reflects a broader EU strategy to safeguard uniform application of Union law across diverse legal systems, especially where domestic reforms risk creating normative gaps.

In practice, the Bulgarian legal landscape now faces a “procedural time bomb.” The 2023 constitutional amendment introduced the individual constitutional complaint, granting courts discretion to refer statutes to the Constitutional Court for constitutional review. While intended to streamline constitutional oversight, the change inadvertently pits national constitutional supremacy against EU law, as the Constitution still claims ultimate authority over international treaties. Lower‑court judges, many of whom lack deep familiarity with CJEU jurisprudence, must navigate this dual hierarchy, often without clear guidance on when to prioritize EU rulings over domestic constitutional interpretations. The result is a growing risk of inconsistent rulings and potential disregard for CJEU decisions, eroding legal certainty.

Looking ahead, the path to reconciling these competing orders hinges on substantive constitutional amendment—a step that requires convening a grand national assembly, an undertaking fraught with political difficulty. Without such reform, Bulgaria may experience recurring jurisdictional clashes that could trigger infringement proceedings or undermine public confidence in both national and EU institutions. For the EU, the case illustrates the limits of formal primacy when member‑state legal cultures resist integration, emphasizing the need for proactive judicial training and diplomatic engagement to ensure that the principle of EU law supremacy translates into everyday courtroom practice.