Measuring EMFA Compliance: Can EMFA Capture-Proof the Bulgarian Media?
This page presents the 2025 Media Capture Monitoring Report: Bulgaria – an annual assessment by the International Press Institute (IPI) and the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) that measures Bulgaria’s compliance with the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) and identifies key media capture risks.
Executive Summary
Bulgaria has made no tangible progress since the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) came into force in August 2025. Although a cross-ministerial working group was previously established, its suspension stalled much-needed reforms. Beyond a few news reports at the time of EMFA’s adoption, implementation has scarcely featured in public debate and remains largely absent from the political agenda.
After several years of political instability, a coalition government took office in January 2025, but media independence has not emerged as a policy priority. Legislative proposals have included amendments to the Penal Code which, if adopted, would risk criminalising investigative journalism. At the same time, the continued risk of vexatious lawsuits (SLAPPs) contributes to a hostile environment for independent reporting.
The Council for Electronic Media (CEM) is formally independent under the Radio and Television Act, but its appointment procedures remain highly politicised and its resources insufficient. While legislation is broadly aligned with AVMSD and elements of EMFA, effective independence in practice is not yet ensured.
Public service media—Bulgarian National Television (BNT) and Bulgarian National Radio (BNR)—benefit from formal safeguards against political influence. However, prolonged interim leadership at BNT, governance disputes, and unstable funding undermine editorial autonomy, leaving legislation only partially aligned with EMFA and insufficiently implemented.
Misuse of state funds remains a central mechanism of media capture. Although general procurement rules require transparency, no specific framework regulates state advertising to media outlets. Contracts are often awarded directly or via intermediaries, many remain confidential, and no independent body monitors these flows. This enables public funds to influence editorial output, particularly in regional markets.
Media ownership transparency provisions exist, yet enforcement remains weak. Recent acquisitions have increased market concentration in the hands of two major conglomerates operating across TV, telecoms, and online media. Given television’s dominant role as a news source, this raises risks to media pluralism.
Overall, Bulgaria remains not aligned with EMFA across key areas: regulator independence, public service media governance, state advertising transparency, and ownership disclosure.
Explore the data
Media capture mechanisms and safeguards
The table below summarises the key media capture mechanisms as well as the existence and enforcement of legal safeguards, and their alignment with the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) identified in the countries covered by the project. To see Bulgaria, click on the respective country tab.
Questions & Answers
This section provides short, structured answers to key questions arising from the Bulgaria 2025 Media Capture Monitoring Report. These entries support journalists, policymakers, researchers and educators who need fast, clear access to findings without reading the full report.
What is the core finding of the report?
Bulgaria has made no meaningful progress toward implementing the EMFA. A reform working group was initially formed but later suspended, and EMFA implementation remains absent from political priorities and policymaking.
Why is EMFA implementation stalled?
The Ministry of Culture has not clarified implementation timelines or responsibilities and declined participation in EU monitoring missions. EMFA reforms remain unclear, unplanned and politically deprioritised.
How independent is the media regulator (CEM)?
CEM is legally independent but politically influenced. Appointment decisions lack transparency, and political negotiations shape governance outcomes. Limited funding and staffing weaken operational independence.
What are the weaknesses in the CEM appointment process?
Appointments lack clear criteria, competitive selection, or institutionalised stakeholder involvement. Civil society and media sector representation are absent, reducing legitimacy and pluralism in regulatory governance.
Does CEM have the resources needed to oversee EMFA compliance?
Not currently. Staffing gaps, insufficient funding and outdated administrative capacity make it difficult for CEM to fulfil existing responsibilities, let alone expanded EMFA oversight tasks.
What is the status of public service media (BNT and BNR)?
Legal safeguards exist, but political influence persists. Leadership disputes, governance uncertainty and structural vulnerabilities undermine editorial independence and institutional stability.
How are leadership positions at public service media appointed?
Appointments are made by CEM, but the process lacks transparency and remains politically exposed. Prolonged leadership uncertainty — especially at BNT — has weakened autonomy and trust.
Is funding for public service media independent and stable?
Only partially. Funding has increased but remains dependent on annual government decisions without a multi-year model, creating financial and political vulnerability.
How are state advertising and public funds allocated to media?
There are no sector-specific rules for allocating public funds to media. Procurement often bypasses competitive tendering, limiting transparency and enabling the use of financing as a tool of influence.
How transparent is media ownership?
Ownership disclosure rules exist, but enforcement is weak. Beneficial ownership is often missing, incomplete, outdated or obscured through corporate layering.
How concentrated is the Bulgarian media market?
Recent acquisitions have strengthened the dominance of two major conglomerates across broadcasting, telecoms and digital platforms, posing structural risks to media pluralism.
What is the main systemic risk identified?
The combination of political influence, opaque public funding, weak regulation and market concentration creates persistent conditions for media capture and low resilience to manipulation.
What key reforms does the report recommend?
The report calls for depoliticising the appointment of regulators and public service media leadership, establishing transparent rules for state advertising, enforcing ownership disclosure, ensuring independent and predictable funding for public service media, and introducing anti-SLAPP protections aligned with EU standards.
Resources & Reference Materials
- Full report (PDF): Media Capture Monitoring Report: Bulgaria 2025
- Integrity & Verification Note (PDF): SHA3-256 digital fingerprint and verification instructions
- Earlier reports: Media Capture Monitoring Report: Bulgaria 2024
- Methodology overview: Check the project page
Citation
Dzhambazova, B. (2025). Media Capture Monitoring Report: Bulgaria 2025. Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC): London/Tallinn/Santiago de Compostela. International Press Institute (IPI): Vienna
Invest in independent media research and join a community of practice.
Your contribution supports MJRC’s investigations and global analysis. As a supporter, you can receive early access to new findings, invitations to small-group briefings, inclusion in our Supporters Circle updates, and the option to be listed on our Supporters Page.
Contribute to MJRC