Bulgaria has reported only five suspected corruption cases involving European Union funds over the past three years, despite persistent concerns about misuse of EU money and systemic graft. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) has highlighted the low number of alerts as a warning sign and urged Bulgarian institutions to improve detection and reporting of fraud and corruption related to EU programmes.​

Bulgaria Reports Only Five Corruption Cases in EU Fund Programmes Over Three Years

**Bulgaria has notified European prosecutors of just five suspected corruption cases involving European Union funds over a three‑year period, raising questions about under‑reporting in a country long scrutinised over graft and the rule of law. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which investigates crimes against the EU budget, has flagged the low number of Bulgarian alerts as a potential indicator of systemic weaknesses in identifying and escalating fund‑related corruption. **​

EPPO highlights low number of Bulgarian corruption alerts

As reported by the editorial team of Novinite, Bulgaria has officially recorded five corruption cases related to EU‑funded programmes over the last three years, based on data shared with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. According to Novinite’s report, these cases concern suspected irregularities and possible criminal offences affecting money allocated under European Union cohesion, agricultural, and recovery instruments.​

As outlined by Novinite, the number of Bulgarian alerts stands out as very low when compared with the volume of EU funds flowing into the country and with concerns repeatedly raised at European level about corruption risks. The outlet notes that the EPPO has interpreted the figure less as evidence of an almost corruption‑free system and more as a sign that local authorities may not be detecting or reporting all problematic cases.​

Role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

As explained in the Novinite coverage, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is the EU body tasked with investigating and prosecuting crimes that harm the EU budget, including fraud, corruption, money laundering and cross‑border VAT offences. Novinite reports that Bulgaria is among the participating member states whose national authorities are required to inform EPPO of suspected offences involving European funds so that European Delegated Prosecutors can decide whether to open investigations.​

According to Novinite, EPPO officials have stressed that the effectiveness of their work depends on timely, complete and good‑quality reporting by national police, prosecutors and managing authorities for EU programmes. The article states that the office views the limited number of Bulgarian corruption signals as a structural concern, because under‑notification may allow serious financial crimes to go unchecked and undermine the protection of EU taxpayers’ money.​

Context of EU funds and Bulgaria’s corruption reputation

As detailed by Novinite, Bulgaria has received substantial funding from the European Union in recent years, including resources from cohesion policy, the Common Agricultural Policy, and the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

The report recalls that, parallel to this, European institutions have for years linked Bulgaria’s governance challenges to corruption risks, pointing to issues in public procurement, the judiciary, and political influence over regulatory bodies.​

Novinite’s story notes that the European Commission and other EU institutions have previously monitored Bulgaria under various mechanisms relating to rule of law, justice reforms and anti‑corruption performance.

In this broader context, the revelation that only five cases tied specifically to EU funds have been signalled over three years appears inconsistent with the scale of EU financial support and with the country’s longstanding image problems around graft.​

National authorities and reporting mechanisms

As reported by Novinite, Bulgaria’s national authorities responsible for managing EU programmes, such as line ministries and implementing agencies, hold primary responsibility for detecting irregularities and suspected fraud in projects they supervise.

According to the same report, these bodies must transmit information about potential criminal conduct to both the national prosecution service and, where EU interests are involved, to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.​

Novinite explains that the low number of reported cases suggests possible weaknesses in internal control systems, risk analysis, and channels for whistleblowers within Bulgarian institutions managing EU funds. The outlet also notes that, in the Bulgarian context, potential barriers could include reluctance to challenge powerful local interests, administrative inertia, or a lack of specialised training among officials tasked with identifying complex financial schemes.​

EPPO’s concerns and calls for improvement

As outlined by Novinite, EPPO representatives have signalled that they do not interpret the five‑case figure as proof that fund‑related corruption is rare in Bulgaria, but rather as an indication that cases may not be adequately reaching European prosecutors.

The report states that EPPO has urged all participating member states, including Bulgaria, to strengthen early‑warning systems, improve data‑sharing, and encourage more proactive referrals from financial control bodies and law enforcement.​

According to Novinite’s article, the office has consistently stressed that EU budget protection depends on cooperation at all levels, including from national anti‑corruption agencies, financial intelligence units and audit authorities.

In this light, the Bulgarian figures are presented as a signal that further work is needed to align domestic practices with EPPO expectations and with best practice in other member states where more cases are being reported and investigated.​

Comparison with broader EU trends

Novinite’s coverage places the Bulgarian situation within a broader EU‑wide picture, noting that EPPO has opened hundreds of investigations across participating countries into suspected fraud and corruption involving European funds.

The article reports that, in several member states, authorities have submitted significantly higher numbers of alerts, which has led to active proceedings related to infrastructure projects, agricultural subsidies and pandemic‑related support.​

As reported by Novinite, this contrast underscores EPPO’s concern that the discrepancy may relate more to variations in detection and reporting systems than to actual differences in the incidence of crime. The report emphasises that EPPO has encouraged less active reporting countries to examine why their numbers are so low and to consider reforms that would bring their practices closer to the norm seen in higher‑reporting jurisdictions.​

Implications for Bulgaria’s governance and EU relationship

According to Novinite’s report, the disclosure about the five corruption cases comes at a time when Bulgaria continues to seek deeper integration within the European Union, including progress on initiatives linked to the single market and further access to EU funds.

The article notes that questions about corruption and the rule of law have, in the past, influenced decisions and debates at EU level regarding Bulgaria’s position and credibility as a reliable partner in managing common resources.​

As described by Novinite, if under‑reporting persists, it could hamper efforts to build trust with European institutions and other member states, particularly in negotiations involving future budget cycles and shared projects.

The coverage highlights that improving transparency and accountability around EU funds is therefore seen not only as a legal and ethical obligation, but also as a strategic priority for maintaining Bulgaria’s standing in the Union.​

Public debate and expectations for reform

Novinite’s article indicates that the revelation about the low number of corruption signals has the potential to fuel further public debate within Bulgaria about how effectively institutions are confronting high‑level graft.

The report points out that anti‑corruption has been a recurring theme in Bulgarian politics, with voters and civil society groups repeatedly calling for stronger safeguards, more independent oversight, and tangible results in prosecuting complex financial crimes.​

As noted by Novinite, EPPO’s observations may add external pressure for Bulgarian authorities to reassess how they handle alerts involving European funds, from the first suspicion at administrative level through to formal transmission to prosecutors.

The coverage suggests that reforms could include clearer procedures, better protection for officials and whistleblowers, and enhanced cooperation between national services and European bodies tasked with protecting the EU’s financial interests.​