The absurdities of the Bulgarian Citizenship Law
The notorious Art. 19 of the Bulgarian Citizenship Law
author: Alexander Dobrinov
Perhaps the most horrible “threat” for every candidate, willing to obtain Bulgarian citizenship, is the resolution of Art. 19 of the Citizenship Law:
The application of a person who meets the conditions for acquiring Bulgarian citizenship by naturalization is rejected if, in view of his behavior, there are serious reasons to believe that the applicant poses a threat to public order, public morals, public health or national security.
Art. 19 of the Citizenship Law
But what does this mean in practice? And how should the norm of Art. 19 be applied? And above all, is this really the “end” for the application for obtaining Bulgarian citizenship?
Obtaining Bulgarian citizenship by naturalization if the applicant is a threat to the national security
Chapter two of the Citizenship Law
In the Citizenship Law, the procedure for acquiring Bulgarian citizenship by naturalization is regulated in Chapter Two, Section III, Art. 12-19. As we already mentioned above, Art. 19 states that the application shall be rejected if the applicant poses a threat to public order, public morals, public health or national security. It should be noted that the norm of the law is imperative.
Chapter five of the Citizenship Law
The procedures for acquiring Bulgarian citizenship are regulated in Chapter Five. In the Citizenship Law, the following mandatory stages for obtaining Bulgarian citizenship are foreseen:
- Personal submission of an application at the Ministry of Justice or at the Bulgarian consulate or embassy (Art. 29, par. 1 of the Citizenship Law);
- Conducting an interview with the applicant for citizenship upon submission of the application (Art. 29, par. 3);
- The proceedings are terminated if the applicant applies for Bulgarian citizenship by origin and does not provide the necessary documents for this (Art. 29, par. 5);
- The Advisory Council renders a motivated positive or negative opinion within two months (Art. 29, par. 6), which is addressed to the Minister of Justice (Art. 32, par. 1). This opinion refers to whether the applicant for citizenship is of Bulgarian origin;
- The Citizenship Council issues an opinion on applications and proposals related to Bulgarian citizenship after written opinions of the Ministry of the Interior and the State Agency for National Security (Art. 33, par. 3). The Citizenship Council may also request additional documents from the applicant, as well as order inspections (Art. 33, par. 4);
- The Minister of Justice, based on the opinion of the Citizenship Council, makes a proposal to the President to issue a decree or to refuse to issue a decree on the acquisition of citizenship (Art. 34);
- And finally, the acquisition of Bulgarian citizenship by naturalization is effected by decree of the President (Art. 36).
The absurdities of the Citizenship Law
The Citizenship Council is giving an opinion, can request information and orders checks – nothing more!
According to the Citizenship Law, the Citizenship Council gives an opinion on applications and proposals (Art. 33, par. 3). Therefore, the Council has no power to terminate proceedings, (dis)honor applications, etc. The Citizenship Council may also request additional documents from the applicant or order inspections (Art. 33, par. 4). With this, the powers of the Citizenship Council, according to the Citizenship Law, are exhausted.
At the same time, we often receive information from our clients that their citizenship applications have been dishonored by the Citizenship Council. On what legal basis, however, the Citizenship Council does not honor applications, is unclear to us…
What happens with the opinion of the Advisory Council?
The Advisory Council, according to Art. 29, par. 6 of the Citizenship Law, is issuing a motivated positive or negative opinion to the Minister of Justice (in the case of an application based on Bulgarian origin). But according to Art. 34, the Minister makes a proposal to the President based on the opinion of the Citizenship Council, not on that of the Advisory Council. And what happens then with the opinion of the Advisory Council to the Minister of Justice?
One could argue that the opinion of the Advisory Council is taken into account by the Citizenship Council, although it is addressed to the Minister. However, this is not true, because according to Art. 33, par. 3, the Citizenship Council “gives an opinion on applications and proposals related to Bulgarian citizenship after written opinions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State National Security Agency“, and not after the opinion of the Advisory Council.

Difference between a threat to the national security and a negative opinion of the Ministry of the Interior or the State Agency for National Security
And finally, let’s return to the main topic of this material, namely how to apply Art. 19 of the Citizenship Law. Or in other words, under what circumstances could the application for acquiring Bulgarian citizenship be rejected?
The provision of Art. 19 and the opinions of the State Agency for National Security and the Ministry of the Interior under Art. 33, par. 3 – two completely different hypotheses
As we already mentioned above, the provision of Art. 19 of the Citizenship Law is imperative. An applicant whose behavior is believed to pose a threat to public order, public morals, public health or national security cannot be naturalized and accordingly acquire Bulgarian citizenship. But how should this obstacle be verified?
The Bulgarian administration is acting by its “own rules”
The authorities in Bulgaria have invented their own “solution”. A standard “rejection” looks like this:
The Citizenship Council has not honored the application according to letter number xxx. The State Agency for National Security objects the application to be approved on the basis of Art. 19 of the Citizenship Law, for reasons affecting national security.
Let’s see what are the legal flaws in this “rejection”.
Lack of authority of the Citizenship Council to deny the application
To begin with, as we have already explained above, the Citizenship Council does not have the authority to honor or not honor the candidate’s application. The Citizenship Council has strictly regulated powers under Art. 33 of the Citizenship Law and these powers are limited to giving an opinion on the application, requesting additional documents from the applicant and assigning inspections.
The Citizenship Council is not the addressee of the citizenship application
Additionally, the application for acquiring Bulgarian citizenship is addressed to the Minister of Justice (Art. 32, par. 1 of the Citizenship Law), not to the Citizenship Council. Accordingly, any refusal to honor the request, for whatever reason, should be objectified as an individual administrative act of the Minister of Justice, as the addressee of the request.
The powers (the authority) of the State Agency for National Security – what are they according to the provisions of the Citizenship Law?
According to Art. 33, par. 3 of the Citizenship Law, the State Agency for National Security and the Ministry of the Interior provide the Citizenship Council with written opinions on the applications for acquiring Bulgarian citizenship. Based on these opinions, the Citizenship Council gives an opinion to the Minister of Justice, who in turn makes a proposal to the President to issue a decree or to refuse to issue a decree on acquisition of citizenship (Art. 34 of the Citizenship Law). The President, in turn, has the right both to comply with or not to comply with the proposal of the Minister of Justice. This Presidential right is based on the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria.
As can be seen from the regulations, the opinion of the State Agency for National Security under Art. 33, par. 3 is only a recommendation. In addition, this opinion, even if it is negative, doesn’t mean that the candidate fulfills any of the prohibitive hypotheses of Art. 19 of the Citizenship Law. Even if the State Agency for National Security is “against” the applicant to receive Bulgarian citizenship, does this mean that he, for example, necessarily poses a threat to the public order or the national security? Of course not. State Agency for National Security may have a number of other reasons to oppose the applicant being naturalized, without these reasons necessarily to be those listed in Art. 19. That is why the opinion of the State Agency for National Security does not have an imperative character.
And yet, what happens if Art. 19 of the Citizenship Law is applied?
But can the State Agency for National Security refer to Art. 19 of the Citizenship Law and thus the candidate’s application to be rejected? Yes, this is possible, but under the following conditions:
- The candidate must actually fall under the hypotheses of Art. 19 of the Citizenship Law, i.e. in view of his conduct there must be serious reasons to believe that he poses a threat to public order, public morals, public health or national security. If the State Agency for National Security is against the naturalization of the applicant, for any other reasons, then this will be the opinion of the Agency, which should only count as recommendation;
- The State Agency for National Security could refer to Art. 19 of the Citizenship Law in its written statement to the Citizenship Council under Art. 33, par. 3. But we believe that in this case, Art. 19 can not be applied directly (through the opinion) and the application should not be rejected automatically;
- The State Agency for National Security cannot refer to Art. 19 of the Citizenship Law, with the wording “due to reasons affecting national security“. The cited legal norm specifically assumes that the petitioner in particular poses a threat to national the security.
Epilogue
We believe that there is a serious omission in the Citizenship Law regarding Art. 19. The law should provide for a direct mechanism for the implementation of this provision. Currently, such a mechanism is missing. Applying it by means of an opinion of the State Agency for National Security or the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Citizenship Council is, in our opinion, illegal. The Citizenship Law envisages that the Minister of Justice will make a proposal to the President, who will have the final say on whether the candidate should be naturalized or not. An exception to this rule does exist in Art. 19, but not in the hypotheses of Art. 33. The Citizenship Council has absolutely no authority to (dis)approve the application for naturalization, regardless of the opinion of the Ministry of the Interior and the State Agency for National Security.