By the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
The Bulgarian Constitutional Court declared inadmissible a request by the Sofia City Court to find unconstitutional legal provisions requiring that persons in pre-trial detention be held in conditions similar to those applicable to convicted prisoners under a strict regime, on the grounds that such provisions breach the right to the presumption of innocence. While the request was found inadmissible on procedural grounds, it nevertheless points to a potential systemic issue regarding the detention regime applicable to pre-trial detainees.
On 28 April 2026, the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible a request by the Sofia City Court to declare unconstitutional Part IV of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act (EPPTDA), which regulates pre-trial detention, as well as Article 248(1)(1) of the same Act, concerning persons accused of serious crimes (Constitutional Case No. 5/2026). The Sofia City Court argued that, in application of those provisions, pre-trial detainees are held in conditions that are less favourable than those applicable to convicted prisoners, in breach of their right to the presumption of innocence.
Indeed, the EPPTDA provides that pre-trial detainees are to be held in conditions similar to those applicable to convicted prisoners under a special or strict regime, even though some of them will receive sentences which, when imposed, will result in placement in a less strict regime. More specifically, Article 248(1)(1) provides that persons accused of crimes, which envisage more than 15 years of imprisonment or life imprisonment, are to be held in permanently locked cells without access to activities and without periodic review of this regime. By contrast, sentenced prisoners placed under a similar security regime are subject to annual review of their conditions of detention.
The Constitutional Court held that Part IV of the EPPTDA contains provisions that regulate a wide range of conditions, most of which are not related to the specific case pending before the Sofia City Court that constituted the grounds for its referral to the Constitutional Court. Similarly, the request concerning Article 248(1)(1) was found inadmissible because it did not meet the requirement of relevance to the case at hand.
The Constitutional Court also declared that, by declaring unconstitutional an entire part of the EPPTDA, it would in effect act as a legislator by changing a wide range of conditions of detention. Finally, it also argued that courts enjoy wide discretion in reviewing remand measures under Article 270 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the possibility to vary or maintain such measures, thereby ensuring judicial control over them.
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
The European Prison Litigation Network (EPLN) and its members and partners monitor developments in domestic prison law across Europe and provide concise analyses of the most significant changes affecting prisoners’ rights at national level. These updates are intended to support practitioners in identifying emerging European trends, drawing on comparative experiences, and strengthening their legal practice and advocacy in defence of prisoners’ rights.
Funded by the Robert Carr Fund. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the Robert Carr Fund, which cannot be held responsible for them.
