Bulgaria's accession to the Peace Council with a mandate from the government in resignation is absolutely legal. This was explained in the program "Intervyuto" by former constitutional judge Rumen Nenkov.
"It was absolutely consistent with the Constitution. The Constitution, I see on the forums they ask - "but, how can a government in resignation? A government in resignation, as well as a caretaker government, they perform all the functions of a government. The Constitution clearly states that the country's foreign policy is guided and exercised by the government. When the government concludes an international treaty that affects human rights and is of a political nature, it submits it to parliament. Parliament has the right to approve it or not. Otherwise, what is it here, was it necessary? Well, first, as far as I understand, we get in a little bit for free. We are not asked for money."
Regarding whether President Iliana Yotova's choice of who will be the next caretaker prime minister is limited, Nenkov commented:
"First, the list is not that short and second - all these people, the fact that they are politicized, is not bad. You cannot be a prime minister and be depoliticized. You journalists called it the "Home Book", but this "Home Book" includes very significant individuals who have received trust from parliament. Wouldn't it be better if someone who is unknown worldwide suddenly becomes famous and then signs a contract, for example a serious one, that would bind the state?"
According to him, "someone will find a way to take on this difficult task of organizing the elections".
Nenkov considers it impossible that all potential candidates for acting prime minister would refuse.
"It seems to me that this will not work, because someone will agree. The issue was more complicated for those who received their mandate, because this is part of the mandate, the opportunity to head a government, who had received their mandate before the amendments to the Constitution were introduced, because when they were appointed or elected to the relevant positions, they did not know that the Constitution would be changed in this way. But I believe that this is too hypothetical."
The former constitutional judge emphasized that Rumen Radev did not keep one of his key promises.
"President Radev's resignation is within the framework of the Constitution. He actually exercised his right to choose, preferring instead of completing his presidential mandate to devote himself to party leadership and party politics. It is obvious that his aspirations will be, his goals will be in representation in parliament and possibly in the executive branch. Otherwise, the assessment of his presidency is special, I think there is something to be desired. I am critical to begin with. I was most interested in the judiciary.
When a head of state promises something, he must fulfill it. He said that he would propose changes to the Constitution. There was even a statement that these changes were ready. It's just that they didn't see a white man, no one even read them. Even if these changes were rejected by the parliament, they would have a very strong political resonance. The entire community, the legal community, judges, prosecutors, investigators, and beyond them, the scientific community, could support them. This would have a very strong effect. And besides, since we are talking about President Radev, I think he owes an explanation as to what exactly he means by the term "mutri" and whether this is only the oligarchy that clings to all politicians and whether he will make policies without economic circles around him.