In this edition of Press Freedom Advocates, Media Defence speaks with Tsvetanka Ivanova, a media lawyer based in Sofia, about the state of press freedom in Bulgaria ahead of the presidential elections on Sunday 25 October.
Elections are the time in the political calendar when timely, accurate, independent reporting arguably matters the most. They are also when journalists face the greatest pressure.
Asked about the state of press freedom in her country, Sofia-based media lawyer Tsvetanka Ivanova mentioned two concurring factors: the first is the newly adopted anti-SLAPP legislation, introduced on September 30, implementing an EU directive; the second is the upcoming presidential election itself.
A new legal shield
On 30 September, the Bulgarian parliament passed amendments to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to protect journalists, activists and others from abusive lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.
The law transposes EU Directive 2024/1069, commonly known as the anti-SLAPP Directive.
Under the new rules, courts can dismiss abusive cases at an early stage, NGOs and journalists’ unions can intervene in proceedings, defendants are protected against legal costs and asset freezes, and claimants found to have brought SLAPPs will be published on the court’s website for 10 years, in what Ivanova defines as a “name and shame” tactic.
“The Bulgarian legislator accomplished something exceptionally important,” says Ivanova, noting that the new law goes beyond the EU’s minimum requirements. “While the Directive is primarily limited to cross-border disputes, the new domestic rules apply to all civil and commercial cases, including purely internal ones. This is critical for Bulgarian journalists, as over 90% of abusive lawsuits in Bulgaria are initiated by local politicians and oligarchs.”
A difficult environment for journalists
The law arrives at a time of growing legal pressure on the media. Bulgaria ranks 71st out of 180 countries in the 2026 RSF World Press Freedom Index, among the three lowest-ranked EU member states.
Over the past three to four years, Ivanova has observed a significant increase in civil and criminal cases against journalists, brought by politicians, corporations, and individuals accused of serious crimes. Claims for damages have reached up to half a million euros (roughly £420,000), as explained by Ivanova.
“Being a journalist in Bulgaria in 2026 is a huge challenge,” she says. “If you are critical of those in power, you are treated like a public enemy. Your investigations are ignored by major outlets, and pressure quickly follows – through threats, smear campaigns, or legal action.”
These attacks do not only take place in court. Ivanova describes a form of hybrid war: “When [journalists] refuse to remain silent, investigations are launched against them, and a hybrid war begins – with slanderous and defamatory campaigns involving trolls on social media – to influence the perception of the otherwise true facts that journalists have uncovered in their work.”
Other factors, such as media ownership and funding, have a deterring effect too. During elections in particular, smaller and regional outlets that rely on political advertising can come under pressure to limit critical coverage. Public broadcasters face their own challenges: Bulgarian National Television and Bulgarian National Radio are funded mainly through the state budget, which Ivanova says “is a significant problem and raises doubts about their independence.”
The election test
Laws do not exist in a vacuum, and, Ivanova says, their real effectiveness will depend on how they interact with the political context. The presidential elections will be an early test, particularly for journalists reporting on politically sensitive issues such as foreign influence, illicit trade, and regional security.
“The Bulgarian legislature has established one of the most progressive anti-SLAPP mechanisms in the region,” she says. “The strict practical application of the new CPC safeguards by the Bulgarian judiciary is of vital importance for preserving objective journalism.”
Several cases currently before Bulgarian courts, concerning the recognition of SLAPP proceedings, access to prosecutorial information, and parliamentary accreditation, will show how far existing legal frameworks can protect journalists in practice.
Ivanova also points to a broader challenge. “Bulgaria is a young democracy,” she says. “There is still no strong instinct for collective self-defence when freedom of speech is threatened. When politicians can openly humiliate journalists, and colleagues stay silent, that is how censorship normalises itself.
“Without independent journalism, society loses its ability to make informed choices,” she concludes. “And that is how authoritarianism begins – quietly.”
