1
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
"ENABLE – Enabling dematerialised access to information and assets for judicial
enforcement of claims in the EU
NUMBER — 721331 — ENABLE
National report - Bulgaria
Chapter I: Introduction
1. Basic Characteristics of the Profession
The civil enforcement legislation of Bulgaria presently provides a dual system of judicial
enforcement: state enforcement officers (SEO) within the system of the judicial branch and
private enforcement officers (PEO) who are independent legal professionals, organized within
the Bulgarian Chamber of Private Enforcement Officers (hereinafter “The Chamber”). The
structure and status of either type of officers are respectively stipulated: by the Judicial
Authority Act (art.264-278) for the SEO and Private Enforcement Officers Act1 for the PEO.
Both types of enforcement officers are subject to the same procedural rules and instruments
with regard to their enforcement prerogatives and professional activities. These are regulated
by the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). The system of the state officers is a remnant of the
former state system of judicial enforcement office with factually diminishing functions. There
are 216 active state enforcement officers appointed by the Minister of Justice. The state officers
are salaried employees within the structure of the district courts. Their remuneration is not
dependent on the results of their work. Being state employees, the liability for any procedural
omission or irregular action is borne by the state, therefore the state would not grant to the state
officer the right of a “professional initiative”, resulting in state officers not being allowed to
undertake enforcement by own discretion (both protective measures and direct execution)
without an explicit request from their creditor. It is a fact that the concept of the 2005 judicial
enforcement reform was to establish judicial enforcement in Bulgaria entirely as a liberal
profession, performed by independent individuals licensed and controlled by the state. The
language of the initial draft bill (introduced on September 17, 2004, filing index 454-01-74)
provided for a 3 year transitional period after which the function of civil enforcement was to be
performed solely by PEOs. Notwithstanding that, the state enforcement system continued to
exist with ever diminishing efficiency as de facto grandfathered status quo mostly due to the
lack of political will to accomplish the reform.
The subject of present the report is limited to the status and professional activity of PEO.
SEO function under the auspices of the court system and their operational structure as well as
functional prerogatives and service interactions are a matter of internal management of the
respective court, therefore neither the operational internal rules, nor the logistical infrastructure
therewith (including electronic systems) represent a public record.
1 Private Enforcement Officers Act (Prom., SG№ 43/ 20.05.2005, in force since 01.09.2005, last amended SG№
49/29.06.2012)
2
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
Private enforcement officers are licensed by the Ministry of Justice (MJ) private individuals
compliant with certain statutory requirements. The jurisdiction of a PEO is limited to the
territorial jurisdiction of the respective provincial court. There are 28 provincial courts in
Bulgaria. The statutory principle of allocation of PEOs is that there should be 1 PEO per 30
000 people for the respective provincial district. By the end of 2016, there are 202 licensed
private enforcement officers in Bulgaria. The usual case of a PEO’s office in Bulgaria is a
professional team consisting of a PEO, one or more deputies (up to three per PEO), clerical
personnel and process servers. Assistant PEOs are licensed through a testing procedure by the
Chamber (under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice). The 2016 Annual Report of the
Chamber shows that more than half of the PEOs have empowered assistants. There are 201
assistant PEOs throughout the country. In broad stokes, the assistant (under an employment
agreement) may exercise all of the procedural prerogatives of a PEO. There is a joint civil
liability, borne by the PEO and the assistant, for any damages caused by the assistant’s unlawful
actions.
The number of the respective PEO’s personnel could vary considerably but a fair estimate
would be that on the average a large office (typical for the capital city of Sofia and the three
major cities of Plovdiv, Varna and Burgas) would be from 20 up to 50 employees. About 4 to
5 offices countrywide operate with more than 50 employees. The typical PEO’s office would
have from 5 up to 15 employees on the average. In general the case is PEOs to operate as sole
professionals, an exception being 6 professional partnerships nationwide, consisting of 2 or 3
partners.
1.1. Professional Status
A Bulgarian PEO must hold degree in Law, 3 yrs. of professional experience as well as to
answer to a number of statutory requirements related to good professional and civic standing as
well as lack of a conflict of interest. Two major eligibility categories may be set out as
prerequisites to obtain the capacity of a PEO:
1.1.1. Professional standards
The professional standards are set forth in PEOA. The PEO is a person to whom the state
has assigned the enforcement of civil claims. The state may also assign the PEO to execute the
collection of public dues the latter being a variety of taxes, customs and/or commodity duties,
fines, litigation costs, etc.
A set of specific professional requirements are stipulated by art. 5 & 6 PEOA). PEO status
requires the capacity of a legally capable physical person, who is a Bulgarian citizen in
compliance with the following qualifications:
1. Academic education in law at Master’s level (JD equivalent);
2. License pursuant to the Judicial System Act to practice law;
3. Minimum of three years' juridical practice;
4. Absence of convictions to imprisonment on felony charges, regardless of
expungement (rehabilitation);
5. License as PEO not being previously revoked;
6. Not being disbarred or banned to conduct certain commercial activities;
3
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
7. Not being bankrupt or in proceedings thereof and has not been convicted of
bankruptcy;
8. Having passed a PEO entry test.
1.2. Incompatibility. The capacity of PEO is also inconsistent with:
1. The office of MP, minister, mayor or municipal councillor;
2. The office of a state or municipal employee;
3. Being employed on a salaried position;
4. Law practice (attorney/barrister/solicitor).
5. Notary practice;
6. Bankruptcy trustee practice;
7. Performing commercial activity, holding a managerial or executive position on a
corporate board.
1.1.2. Ethical Standards – stipulated by the Code of Professional Ethics. The code is an
“in-house” act i.e. internal regulations of the Chamber adopted by the General Assembly of the
Chamber.
Within the frame of the above referenced standards, as well as within the limitations of their
territorial jurisdiction, PEOs in Bulgaria function in a state of competition among themselves.
For instance, 12 PEO registered in the Burgas province (administrative district) exercise their
marketing efforts within all statutory and ethical limitations to attract cases from both private
and institutional creditors having titles and sanctioned enforceable claims related to the
jurisdiction of Burgas province.
According to art.7 PEOA the Chamber Council renders an opinion on the public trust
enjoyed by each of the candidates. Although the positive formal opinion of the Chamber is an
absolute prerequisite for granting a professional license, there is no definition in the law what
“public trust” is. This problem is a vivid example of “imported legislation”. Bulgarian PEOA
has been basically modelled after a Dutch legal framework under the expertise of several
European and American experts. While in UK, USA, France and other Western European
countries categories as “public trust” or “good moral character” are understood by default due
to a millennia of moral tradition, this is not the case in Bulgaria. Presumably that phenomenon
is due to the fast and hardly planned transition from a highly centralized communist rule to a
democratic state of personal freedom and market entrepreneurship at the end of the eighties and
the beginning of the nineties of the 20th century. This is a deficiency that has demonstrated its
effect again and again through the years. That does not mean that Bulgarian society and/or legal
profession profess exceptionally different moral standards in comparison to the rest of the
world, but when it comes to a formal criterion to be applied for a professional license to be
granted or revoked, there is a certain deficiency of regulation, which requires resolution.
PEOs are subject of control by a dual administrative system. The State Inspectorate within
the MJ is the government controlling authority. The Ethical Commission and a Disciplinary
Board within the Chamber of Private Enforcement Officers are the guild bodies in charge of
monitoring, control and implementation of disciplinary measures.
1.2. Remuneration
4
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
The income of the PEOs is formed by a combination of fixed fees as well as pro-rata fees
based on the collected amount of dues as regulated by a Tariff. PEOs may conduct and direct
the enforcement procedure by their own initiative upon general authorization by creditor
according to article 18 of Private Enforcement Officers Act (May 10, 2005). On the balance, a
PEO is liable for any professional misconduct and illegal action that has ensued damages on
one’s entire property (the latter not preventing potential disciplinary and/or criminal liability).
In terms of organizational entities, PEOs in Bulgaria function predominantly as sole
practitioners. Regardless of being provided by law (art.30 of Private Enforcement Officers
Act), professional partnerships of PEOs in Bulgaria are few. As previously stated there is a hole
of 6 partnerships, which are consisted of up to 3 partners each.
2. Overall e-Justice strategy environment in the country in relation to enforcement.
2.1. Court structure
The court structure in Bulgaria is outlined comprehensively in the European e-Justice
Portal.2 For the purpose of clarity and coherence, present review uses the structural terminology
used by this database, i.e. first instance courts are district courts, the next (upper) level courts,
acting as courts of first and second instance, are provincial courts and etc. Each Bulgarian court
maintains a website, which provides information both on the court's structure and activities and
on cases past and present. The website of the Supreme Judicial Council provides a detailed list
of the courts in Bulgaria, alongside with their addresses and websites (available in Bulgarian
language only). The web sites of the court in most cases are operational and in good functional
condition. Compared to the situation in the late 80ties and the 90ties of the last century the
possibility for a remote access to case information is a significant step forward to a streamlined
case management both for the court authority and for the litigants and their representatives.
Nonetheless, the bigger picture of the Bulgarian e-justice environment reveals a necessity for
significant improvement. Compared to the most advanced e-justice national systems, the
Bulgarian juridical environment bears substantial deficiencies of automated means for e-justice
implementation. The period from the inception of democratic changes and market economy,
hence – genuine rule of law, from 1989 up until the first decade of 21 century, was marked by
more or less sporadic developments of automated management systems within different
branches of the judicial administration and the court system, which has not been unified by a
single concept or a common strategy.
2.2. Statutory framework
Presently existing fundamental statutory planning on government level is relatively new. It
provides a promising legislative frame, but yet lacks detailed mechanisms for practical
implementation in technical regulations and is especially deficient in terms of logistical
(network, hardware, software and etc.) capacity. The statutory framework consists of Strategy
for the Introduction of E-government and E-Justice in the Justice Sector 2014-2020 (adopted
by Decision of the Council of Ministers No 531 of 21.07.2014) with a Roadmap containing
detailed technical and budgetary breakdowns and E-Justice Concept Containing the Principles,
Objectives and Phases of its Implementation (adopted by the Council of Ministers decision of
2 https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_judicial_systems_in_member_states-16-bg-en.do?member=1
5
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
21.11.2012). In implementation of the strategy, the following legislative sources have been
either adopted or amended and adapted to comply with the Strategy:
- Electronic Governance Act (E-Governance Act) (SG 46/12.06.2007, in force -
13.06.2008 last amendment SG 62/9.08.2016, in force 1.07.2016)
- Electronic Identification Act (SG38/20.05.2016г., in force - 21.11.2016 last amendment
SG101/20.12.2016)
- Electronic Document and Electronic Signature Act (EDES Act) (SG34/06.04.2001, in
force - 06.10.2001, last amendment SG101/20.12.2016)
- Judicial Authority Act (amendments to) (SG 64/07.08.2007г., in force - 3.04.2009, last
amendment SG 14/10.02.2017) Chapter 18 “a”
- Regulation of the General Requirements for Network and Information Security
(Adopted by Council of Ministers, Decree No 279 of 17.11.2008, in force - 25.11.2008,
Amended, SG No. 5/17.01.2017)
- Regulation of the Requirements for the Unified Environment for Exchange of Electronic
Documents (Adopted by Council of Ministers, Decree № 158 of 2.07.2008, prom. SG
62/11.07.2008, amended, SG 58/30.07.2010, in force - 30.07.2010)
2.2.1. By Decree No 665 from October 13th 2000 the Council of Ministers approved and
introduced into Parliament an Electronic Document and Electronic Signature Bill which in fact
was the first substantial piece of legislation on e-governance and it also laid down the statutory
base for electronic exchange of and access to information via authentic and binding legal
statements and claims as well as exercising legal authority over one’s rights of property or claim
over such. The law basically follows the framework of the Directive 1999/93/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for
electronic signatures. The bill granted to the Council of Ministers the liberty of indicating when
and which subordinate administrative bodies will be obliged to accept and issue electronic
documents signed with an electronic signature, thus gradually extending the scope of the law
(depending on technological readiness of individual administrative bodies) and in the area of
administrative law.
2.2.2. Given the requirement for legal proceedings to be settled by a statute, the extension of
the scope of the law and in the field of litigation was meant to be achieved by amending and
supplementing the relevant procedural laws: the Code of Civil Procedure, the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Code of Administrative Procedure, the Administrative Violations and Sanctions
Act, the Taxation and Social Security Procedural Code. As a matter of fact, those pieces of
legislation have been quite sparsely changed or adapted in order to implement electronic
statements, documents and signatures with the exception of recognizing the notification via e-
mail as a valid service of information to a party in proceedings. The application of the latter is
restricted by the condition of a preliminary formal consent of the party on a case by case basis,
which in practice limits any tangible effect of such regulation.
Thus the Code of Civil Procedure in its section 4, chapter 14 (Written Evidence), art. 184
regulates the presentation of an electronic document as evidence in court with dominant
assurance that a paper venue may be used as an alternative: “1.The electronic document may
6
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
be presented reproduced in hard (paper) copy certified by the party. Upon request, the party is
required to submit the document electronically. 2. If the court has no technical means and
specialists enabling the reproduction of the electronic document and for a reliable check of the
electronic signature … electronic copies of the document shall be provided to each party. In
this case, the authenticity of the electronic document may be challenged at the next court
hearing.” Such language reveals not only the traditional conservative approach to innovations
but also the lack of capacity of the courts to process electronic data reliably for the purpose of
gathering evidence and adjudicating a case.
The Council of Ministers designates its subordinate bodies which: 1. cannot refuse the
acceptance of electronic documents signed with Universal electronic signature; 2. may not
refuse to issue a document in electronic form, signed with a universal electronic signature,
permits, licenses, approvals and other administrative acts.; Sec.2. Acceptance and issuance of
electronic documents signed by a universal electronic signature, in the judicial system are
governed by law3….” has been repealed in 2011, presumably for the lack both of administrative
and logistical capacity to implement the obligations of the respective authorities in practice.
The other state institutions, which are not subject to the Council of Ministers (such as the
National Assembly, the Constitutional Court, the National Audit Office, the Bulgarian National
Bank, the State Securities Commission, the Commission for Protection of Competition etc.),
municipalities and mayoralties were granted the freedom to introduce the practice of electronic
exchange by their own acts, if and when those institutions deem appropriate.
Since the adoption of the EDES Act the exchange of binding information and statements
signed by electronic signature have found wide implication in the private sector. Areas of
application are electronic banking and other electronic transfer of funds and securities,
invoicing, exchange of auditing and managerial data. The implications in the government
sector are quite limited compared to other more technologically advanced countries, and yet it
marks a remarkable development compared to the bureaucratic stalemate in the administration
typical for the late 80ties and the 90ties. Instances for use of electronic signature and automated
interaction with government registers (and other databases) for filing and extracting information
include but are not limited to:
- Tax filing and archive references to tax records for entities and physical persons
(National Revenue Agency);
- Requesting and obtaining data in the debtor’s tax dues by state authorities and
enforcement officers (National Revenue Agency);
- Data exchange between hospitals and other health providers with the National Health
Financial Authority;
- Requesting and obtaining data in the debtor’s social security withholding (employment
record) by state authorities and enforcement officers (National Social Security Institute);
3 Presumably the bill for amendment of the Judicial Authority Act
7
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
- Access to civic records - database managed and hosted by the local municipal
governments;
- Requesting and obtaining data from the National Central Bank for bank accounts and
safe deposit boxes by state authorities and enforcement officers (enforcement officer’s
prerogative);
- Attachment of registered corporate shared in the Commercial Register (enforcement
officer’s prerogative);
- Notarial Registry for wills, powers-of-attorney, forged instruments;
- On-line communication between each notary public and the Commercial Register for
data exchange regarding all registered circumstances related to corporate (shares, stocks,
capital, financial reports and etc.) ownership, which are subject to notarial verification and
registration by statute;
- On-line access to the personal ID Register, hosted by the Ministry of the Interior (notary
prerogative)
- On-line access to the Civic Register (prerogative of notaries and enforcement officers)
2.3. Implementation of the e-justice initiatives on a national level
2.3.1. Although IT developments in the judicial process have been amply debated and
formally regulated in the course of the last decade, the practical implementation of the e-justice
mechanisms as well as working implications of an integrated e-justice system at a national level
are very limited. For instance, there is a Unified e-Justice Portal (https://ecase.justice.bg/)
where there is active connection to just 10 out of 113 district courts and 8 out of 28 provincial
courts. The user registration provided by the system does not allow on-line registration but
rather a paper filing in the respective court. Another function of the portal
(http://legalacts.justice.bg/), allows access to judicial orders and decrees with no username and
password requested, since judicial acts are public domain by law, but documents are often
uploaded with delays, searches are neither reliable nor conclusive. A common problem of that
and similar systems (such as the web platforms of each court) is that not all of the services
formally offered are responsive and functional. Needless to say, translations in other EU MS
languages are a rare exception.
2.3.2. The EC 2017 Technical Report4 (summarized infra for the purpose of this report)
provides a comprehensive analysis of the present state of functionality and logistical capacity
of the Bulgarian e-justice system. According to the report, at the time of the accession to the
EU, rules were put in place to require courts to publish court decisions online. The
implementation of this requirement took some time to ensure in all instances, but is general
practice today. In recent years electronic case management systems have been introduced
4 BULGARIA: Technical Report, Accompanying the document, REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND, THE COUNCIL on Progress in Bulgaria under the Cooperation and
Verification Mechanism, Brussels, 25.1.2017SWD(2017) 24 final (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/swd-
2017-24_en.pdf)
8
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
in most courts, in some cases also allowing for external communication. A unified electronic
system for the management of criminal cases has already been implemented within the
prosecution in 2014 but has yet to be extended to the courts. Communication between
prosecutor's offices and police is problematic due to the lack of a common IT system, which
may be a cause of delays in pre-trial proceedings. Plans have been made regarding the
challenges related to the introduction of electronic tools in the Bulgarian judiciary over the
coming years in the context of a broader government e-justice strategy.
The allocation of court cases amongst judges within competent courts is an area where
Bulgaria has for many years had electronic systems in place. According to the law (Judicial
Authority Act), the decision on which judge should be charged with a particular case must be
based on the principle of random allocation. The system of random allocation of cases has
been adopted as a mechanism for the prevention of undue influence and corruption in the
courts. In addition to these methods of protection the use of an automatic, electronic system is
supposed to remove any possible human interference in the selection of the judge for
any particular case.
In regard to the judicial enforcement, it is a fact that neither the legislative sources nor the
administrative regulations address the system of private judicial enforcement as a part of the
national e-justice system with the exception of a few marginal provisions which shall be
addressed further on. It would be a fair estimate that the mission for development and
implementation of information technology in the profession of civil enforcement lies entirely
within the initiative and material resources of the PEO Chamber and its members.
Perhaps the most authoritative and objective national assessment of the e-justice
implementation within the judicial system consists in the Strategy (Decree № 163 of Council
of Ministers of 21.03.2014).
In its pertinent parts the document (sec. VI, 6.1., 6.3., 6.4.) describes that the E-Governance
Act and implementing regulations regulate the requirement to develop an e-government
strategy in the justice sector. At present, there is no legal possibility to use the electronic
document and the electronic signature in direct activity and interaction with the bodies of the
judiciary and their administrations. There is also no legal mechanism to exercise procedural
rights in electronic form. Single provisions in procedural laws introduce limited possibilities
for keeping certain lists or ledgers in electronic form and performing certain actions via the
internet. With the entry into force of the Electronic Document and Electronic Signature Act,
electronic documents are recognized as equivalent to paper and may be signed with a simple,
advanced or qualified electronic signature which has the legal effect of a handwritten signature.
However, a wide range of legal rights related to the statutory recognition of the e-document and
e-signature by the judiciary authorities and the exercise of procedural rights via e-venues remain
unregulated outside the scope of EDES Act, hence implementation of these electronic tools is
presently latent. The current Judicial Authority Act does not stipulate tools for the judiciary to
handle cases in electronic form. There is also no possibility of transforming paper documents
and evidence into electronic ones. The law does not regulate (with few very limited exceptions)
the process service by electronic means and its transfer from an auxiliary into a primary tool
for service.
9
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
The Strategy analyses leads to the conclusion that to date there is not a single systematic
approach to implement IT data processing in the Bulgarian judicial system. Existing software
applications have been purchased or created over different periods of time, with the aim of
meeting then current needs of either the Justice Ministry, its subsidiaries or the respective
judicial structures. IT infrastructure that automates the substantive activities of individual units
as an integrated system is virtually absent. As a major drawback of the interactive operation of
information systems, is their development and implementation before the adoption of the
current E-government regulation. Therefore these do not meet basic requirements for
interoperability and information security. None of the information systems currently in
operation have been certified in accordance with the Regulation on the requirement for a single
environment for exchange of electronic documents, and there is no link with the Unified
Electronic Document Exchange Environment hosted by the Ministry of Transport, Information
Technology and Communications. The data exchange between the Justice Ministry and its
subsidiary units as well as with the Judicial Authority structures is primarily through paper
documents, there is not an internal electronic system for administrative service.
Servers and accompanying software for active directory, mail server and etc. have been
supplied, but the goals have not been fully achieved. Partial implementation leads to a lack of
centralized storage, management, control and policy development. Insufficient in number and
decentralized mail servers result in the use of different e-mail providers with varying quality of
service as well as security standards. The analysis shows that the state of information
technology in the different units of the Justice sector is characterized by vertical and horizontal
decentralization - each structure hosts independent IT infrastructure consisting of active and
passive communications equipment, servers and storage media and information systems. There
are no common standards and no coordination of the specialized human resource involved in
the development and maintenance of said systems.
There is a variety of reasons for the multitude of incoherent (and ultimately – inefficient) e-
governance systems in Bulgaria. In general, this is due to the historical lack of political vision
of the necessity of a unified e-governance. As already discussed, since the early nineties each
branch, service and/or department has been developing its own systems without any particular
unification concept. In more pragmatic terms – a major reason for this tendency is the absence
of unified and secure means of electronic identification. Currently there are many functional
electronic administrative services provided by the National Revenue Service, National Social
Security Agency, The Registry Agency (Including Land Registry, National Cadastre and
Commercial Register). These means of access are far from unified, though. At different
institutions and registers a variety of ID tools such as PIN, PIC, qualified electronic signature
and etc. are requested. Obtaining, maintenance and safekeeping of all related information and
devices proves complicated and resource consuming. The Electronic Identification Act in effect
since 21.11.2016, stipulates an obligation for all entities to maintain a unified means for
electronic identification, while preserving the present venues of access for a transitional period.
3. IT solutions in the organization of Private Enforcement Officers in Bulgaria
3.1. The IT infrastructure of the Bulgarian PEO consists of two major segments:
1/ registers and data management of the Chamber;
10
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
2/ case management systems of the individual PEO and/or PEO partnerships.
These two segments do not interact systematically and by default, regardless of the fact that
they are partially integrated as a flow of data. For instance, registered debtors and auctioned
properties for the purposes respectively of the Central Debtors Register and the Public Sales
Register are transferred automatically from the PEO case database to the Chamber’s registry
database. Both these segments of the PEOs IT infrastructure are basically independent from all
national automated registers (population, land, vehicles, intellectual property and etc.) as well
as from the registers and databases of the national judicial system as a whole. The Chamber
through its Board (Council) and Chairman is competent to resolve all matters related to the first
segment. Should a major cost is to be incurred, it has to be planned and voted for through the
annual budget mechanism. Traditionally (as much as in terms of regulation) the Chamber does
not interfere with the second segment. Internal statutory measures have been taken in times
when the functionality of the central registers of the Chamber have depended on certain
functionalities of the PEOs’ individual case management systems, i.e. those were ruled into
compliance with the respective Chamber registers. The development of the PEO’s individual
management systems is not regulated neither by the Chamber, nor by any government authority.
The compliancy test here is rather the “empirical” outcome of the evolution of these IT systems.
Should automated registers, debt calculators, statutory updates and etc. prove to be incorrect or
incoherent on one level or another with laws and regulations, that would lead to liability both
on disciplinary and civil grounds. On the other hand, no respectable PEO’s office can afford to
incur the default on one’s image and authority by any such failure and remain unhurt by the
competition.
Before elaborating on the PEOs’ infrastructure and its correlation to national integrated
databases, it would be beneficial to present a retrospective review of both the legislative and
implemental timeline related to the introduction of the PEO’s profession in Bulgaria and the
related IT developments.
The initial concept while setting the foundation of the profession in 2005 under the auspices
of USAID and EU experts, was one unified information system for all PEO (under the Cyrillic
designation “ИССИ”). Article 77a of Private Enforcement Officers Act still provides for such,
notwithstanding the fact that presently it is virtually non-existent. Such system was developed
in 2006 predominantly with USAID funds with the intent to be hosted by the Ministry of Justice
from 2007 onward. The purpose of the system was to provide for automated functioning of all
procedural implication (title and parties, document templates and process service, attachment
(arrest) and asset processing, debt calculation and accounting, cash flow processing & etc.) on
a national scale, as well as to provide reliable statistical data and facilitate access and control
over the civil enforcement operations. Lacking long term vision as well as administrative
capacity at the inception of the reform, both the Justice Ministry and the Chamber failed to
recognize ИССИ as a priority. Lack of funding for development and maintenance of the system
made it unpractical as soon as dynamic new legislation was introduced and the system did not
follow with the updates. Presently, just two PEOs use the ИССИ system with limited
efficiency. Currently, as already mentioned, the development of a centralized IT system for the
judicial enforcement is not among the plans and the priorities of the state.
4. E-justice activities, Registers and data management of the Chamber
11
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
E-justice implementation in the enforcement procedure is a major priority for the Chamber.
The Chamber has funded and accomplished by own initiative several major IT projects such as
The Central Debtors Register, The Public Auctions Register, Filing and Data Processing
System.
4. 1. The Central Debtors Register
The Central Debtors Register is an automated database developed and hosted by the
Chamber which contains information of all active cases processed by private enforcement
officers. A note of reference whether an entity or person is a debtor in an enforcement case
could be obtained from the register via request through each PEO’s office in Bulgaria. The
reference is based on an instant automated check in a database deriving data from all PEOs’
offices nationwide. For comparison, if an entity wishes to obtain a certificate whether it has an
enforcement case against oneself in the State Enforcement Service, it has to file a request on
paper with each one of the 113 State Judicial Enforcement Services within the system of the
district courts. For confidentiality concerns only a physical person per se or via an authorized
attorney may obtain a reference for oneself from the PEO’s database. When it comes to
companies, however, anyone could request a reference. Through the years since its inception,
the system has become a valuable source of information whether a person is a credible partner
for obtaining a credit from a bank or for other contractual purposes. All major IT systems in
PEOs’ offices are designed for an automated exchange of data with the register. The few offices
which do not use an automated system are obliged to log online and enter the necessary case
information manually.
The Central Debtors Register is in constant use on daily basis by consumers - private
enforcement officers, companies, individuals, and corporate clients (predominantly banks, non-
banking financial institutions, insurance and leasing companies). Beginning 2014, corporate
customers are able to receive information about the presence or absence of pending enforcement
cases through remote electronic access. Subscription to this service is available upon request,
accompanied by a certificate for registration as an administrator of personal data. It is subject
to approval by the Chamber and an agreement thereof. The price of the service depends on the
number of references per month. For the last three years the number of references has increased
significantly compared to the first three years since the establishment of the Register. In 2016,
a total of 22,510 references were issued, of which 17,715 requested by (small size) companies
and citizens and 4,795 from corporate clients. For comparison - in 2015 were issued 21,184
references, in 2014 – 29,126 references.
4.2. The Public Auctions Register
The Register of Public Auctions is an enterprise which is unique for a Bulgarian public
institution. Due to the accurate and transparent display of auctioned debtors’ properties and
assets, with a multitude of find and search functionalities, the Register has boosted public
interest in auctioned properties, which has been an important contribution to the efficiency of
the civil enforcement. It also has elevated the image of the Chamber as an open and transparent
institution, targeting the optimal balance of both creditors’ and debtors’ interest. The Register
is globally accessible online and provides sufficient data to form an informed opinion in regard
to a property under auction. The Register provides visual images of the property, as well as
complete cadastral description, parties in the case, legal encumbrances and etc.
12
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
The amendment to Art. 487, para. 2 of the CPC of 2013 introduced the requirement for the
public sale notice to be published on the website of the District Court with respective territorial
jurisdiction. This must be done at least one day before the day of commencement of the sale.
The site provides information about public sales, conducted by both SEOs and PEOs. The
Register of Public Auctions allows for a wider disclosure of the future auction to potential
buyers and consequently the opportunity for more efficient sales of auctioned property. The
Public sales register enables a higher degree of transparency, providing search options by
different criteria. The serious differences in the ways of disclosure of auctions between the PEO
and SEOs puts the debtors in SEOs enforcement cases in a disadvantage. The auction
information on the court’s website is harder to access, accordingly the probability of a contested
bid achieving higher price is lower, the lack of transparency provides for a higher risk of abuse
of the auction process.
Unfortunately the public auctions of debtor’s property in Bulgaria are carried out in an “old
fashioned manner”. It is an auction held on the premises of the district court in the presence of
the registered bidders, under the conduct of the PEO (assistant PEO). This provides a certain
hindrance for a larger number of potential buyers to partake in the auction via distant IT venues.
The PEO’s Chamber has had initiated attempts to introduce an electronic auction initiative, the
implementation of which understandably demanded substantial legislative backing-up. At
present, e-auctions as well as other e-justice initiatives of the Chamber do not attract substantive
support from the politicians and representatives of the national legislature*. (For clarification,
please see “Final Notice and Disclaimer” at the end of the report)
The site has become a major source of information for real estate investors, agents and the
general population. In 2016, the website of the Register has been visited by 828 932 unique IP
addresses. At least twice as many unique visitors have logged into the site, given the fact, that
many computers are used by more than one person, and that some IPs, such as corporate
establishments, have numerous users, behind them. This is a 0.09 % decrease, compared to
2015 when the number was 829 646. It is most likely that the decrease observed is due to the
fact that the public sales in 2016 were less than in 2015, based on decreasing number of cases
processing real estate and vehicles. In 2016 50,818 property sales announcements were
published in the Register (compared to 52,949 in 2015). From these 45 646 were auctioned real
estates (compared to 47,161 in 2015); the auctioned vehicles were 1 751 (compared to 1959 in
2015) and other movables - 3 421 announcements (compared to 3 829 in 2015)5. In 2016, the
website of the Register was visited 3,503,866 times and a total of over 42,859,580 pages were
examined. The average number of pages reviewed per visitor was 12 on each visit, with visitors
spending an average of 8 minutes per visit. On average, the site was visited by approximately
2 271 visitors daily in 2016, the number in 2015 being 2273.
4.3. Filing and Data Processing System of the Chamber
5 According to art. 474, sec.5 CPC items with value exceeding BGN 5000 (€ 2500), motor vehicles, ships and
aircrafts, are subject to a sale under the rules for public sale of a real estate. There is a 30-day notification period
by placing a formal notice, followed by public auction at the premises of the district court. Items of a lesser value
may be auctioned on site a week (up to three weeks) after the date of the inventory. Sales in stores or specialized
markets are also admissible by law.
13
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
The year of 2016 marked yet another important step in the Chamber’s quest for management
efficiency through implication of IT instruments by accomplishing an automated filing and data
processing system. The system encompasses an electronic database of the entire archive of the
Chamber since 2006, including but not limited to PEO status and registration, documentation
related to the administration of the Chamber, data related to disciplinary proceedings as well as
to internal monitoring. The system has a criteria search and filtering functionalities allowing
access to scanned archives, internal administrative acts and procedural records. Through
module "Disciplinary and Judicial Practice" an operator could extract and process electronic
copies of disciplinary cases and files. Decrees of the Disciplinary Committee, rulings and
judgments of district courts as well as the Supreme Court could be accessed and filtered by
different criteria, such as: parties, type of disciplinary sanctions, nature of the violation (ethical,
disciplinary or infringement of good practice criteria and etc.). Through the available
electronic database information on complaints, disciplinary proceedings, claims for
damages, professional insurance and etc. information for each PEO, subject to a procedure or
an administrative operation, could be extracted quickly and systematically. For instance, the
Chamber could notify automatically a PEO on a failure to renew one’s professional insurance
or to file one’s mandatory annual report.
Since the beginning of 2016, the Chamber has activated a centralized information system for
processing the annual statistical reports of the PEO. The reports are due by statute and provide
valuable information for the number of cases opened, closed and active as well as of amounts
of funds, due and monies collected. The system’s functionality allows for references in regard
to the source and the nature of the debt as well as to the case parties, regardless of these being
physical persons or entities, and the latter respectively being commercial, cooperatives, non-
profit organizations, etc.
4.4. Case management systems of the individual PEO and/or PEO partnerships
Regardless of the state institutions failure to provide for a unified judgment enforcement
information system, the operations of the PEOs in Bulgaria are sufficiently automated in all
aspects of the enforcement procedure. There are about 3 major software systems, developed
by specialized IT companies (“Enforcer”/ https://enforcer.bg/enforcer/; “Jes”; “Executor”
http://www.executor.bg/) for enforcement case management as well as several others,
sponsored and developed by individual PEO’s offices. Few PEO’s offices still perform their
clerical operations using paper registers and ledgers. The availability of IT case management in
civil enforcement is not compulsory by law, but is rather a managerial and marketing necessity
imposed by a dynamic legal environment.
In general terms POE’s case management systems perform automated creation, update and
synchronization of documents and registers such as:
- Correspondence ledger (Input/Output); operations log; case register
- Minutes, records of procedural activities, statutory notices, decrees,
- Maintenance and update of a case Index
- Integrated shared e-doc folder
In effect the information carried by a certain document (e.g. a writ of execution or a notice
for enforcement) once registered in the system is processed, filtered and distributed through the
14
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
respective registers to provide synthesized data for a multitude of operational purposes such as
following deadlines, planning and reporting, scheduling of operations, and etc.
The cash flow management implications (with slight variation among different systems)
include Integration with Internet Banking, debt calculation and clearing, offset of interest and
costs, transfer of collected funds and/or disbursement. Operational functions include but are
not limited to automated data summary for statutory reporting, work/tasks calendars, “time
machine”(case history for auditing purposes), automated synchronization with the debtors'
register. All systems have integrated functionalities for financial accounting, i.e. each
procedural operation related to a fee is accounted for by the issuance of an accounts under Art.
79 Private Enforcement Officers Act and an invoice under the Accounting Act. In the most
advanced versions the systems maintain the “electronic case” functionality – a complete
scanned version of the paper file allowing for dynamic management via a bar code recognition
– for instance when a notice is served, by scanning the bar code, the system would designate
the document as “served” in the respective automated log and mark the deadlines in the
respective ledgers, calendars and schedules. Serving the same purpose the systems are
generally similar in functionality, the “Enforcer” being one of the most advance amongst them.
The system is WEB based Server - Client type and is accessed through a private IP address,
which is located in the office of the PEO. The system interacts with the Chamber’s Debtor's
Registry via an encrypted HTTP connection and through an API program supported by the
Chamber. Remote users access a server, which is maintained by the provider as the systems of
respective PEO users synchronize the necessary information through provider’s internal
programming interface. Through provider’s internal program interface (API) through HTTPS,
the provider updates PEO’s entire program with new features or performs troubleshooting.
Although the IT systems provide for predominantly automated operations in each PEO’s
office in terms of case and financial management, process service, document processing, remote
access to case data and etc., that does not change the general fact that the justice process in
Bulgaria (both civil and criminal) and judicial enforcement as an integral part of it, is
materialized and processed via paper files. All and any electronic data related to a judgment
enforcement case are just an image reflection of the paper original which is considered solely
authentic and relevant in case a dispute is raised whether a certain claim, objection, ruling or
other relevant legal action has occurred or is existent as an occurrence of fact or a matter of law.
A practical illustration of the latter is the following: in case of judicial control is to be exercised
over the legitimacy of one a PEO’s actions, the competent court is to demand a paper copy of
the case file for judicial review. Control exercised by the MJ Inspectorate is performed under
the same condition. Due to present arrangements, it is not unusual for hundreds of case files
copies, consisting of hundreds, sometimes - thousands of pages, to be transferred through
controlling institutions on a daily basis.
On the “flip side of the coin” it has to be admitted that the court system (whose judgments
are subject of execution by the PEOs) does not have a single integrated information system. At
present there are several systems for case management in the Bulgarian courts, each with its
own mechanism of data protection and control which is a practical hurdle on the way of their
integration.
It is widely accepted within the legal circles that a unified integrated platform of the judicial
enforcement would be highly beneficial and there are indeed a multitude of arguments to that
end. A single system would streamline the data processing which at present (being subject to
15
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
a variety of technical approaches and efficiency criteria) contributes to some controversy as to
the authenticity of the outcome result, which is mostly focused on the calculation and
disbursement of an aggregated debts against multiple and often irregular partial payments (e.g.
alimony, child support, etc.). A unified system would also be much more suitable for
integration (in terms of on-line access and data exchange) with the various data platforms of
state and municipal agencies hosting public registers.
On the opposing side is the argument that at present the IT systems in operation in PEO’s
offices compete among themselves which brings not only to adequate compliance with any
legislative change, but also to a rapid development of new functionalities resulting in higher
efficiency of the process and cost reduction in the long run.
In larger perspective, the introduction of e-justice management in the area of judicial
enforcement is generally accepted as a must in terms of modernization and technological
adequacy by all branches of the legal profession. Paradoxically, however, the Strategy for the
Introduction of E-government and E-Justice in the Justice Sector 2014-2020 (hereinafter
referred to as the Strategy) does not bring any clarity what the involvement of the State if any
at all would be. The only part of the Strategy that relates to the judgment enforcement, refers to
“Information system of the judgment enforcement”, envisaging to "accept applications, notices
and appeals concerning the operations of judicial officers, both state and private, as well as such
of the land registry judges, notaries and bankruptcy trustees." If the planned IT system for the
judicial enforcement is limited to the functionality described by the Strategy, which would mean
that the Bulgarian state does not plan to provide IT automation of the judicial enforcement
system of equal or similar scale to the automation envisaged for the processing of court cases.
The functionalities listed in the strategy in regard to the system of judicial enforcement would
not include enforcement case processing on an electronic platform via means of software
management, as well as remote access of parties and their legal proxies to such cases. Neither
would such system allow remote access and review by authorized parties for purpose of
monitoring, control and disciplinary review.
An unfortunate example for the lack of initiative and active involvement on behalf of the
state besides the failed ИССИ system is the currently dormant stipulation of art. 450 of CCP6.
6 Art. 450a. (New, SG No. 49/2012, effective 1.01.2013) (1) Attachment on debtor's entitlement on funds in a bank
account may be imposed by a bailiff by means of an attachment in electronic form, signed with Qualified electronic
signature electronically sent through a Unified Electronic Attachment Exchange Platform. Attachment on other
entitlements of the debtor in a bank is carried out in the general order.
(2) The bailiff and the banks may be listed on or excluded from the Unified Electronic Attachment Exchange
Platform by a unilateral statement to the Minister of Justice. By being listed in the Unified Platform, bailiffs and
banks undertake obligation to accept electronic statements regarding levying, enforcement and lifting of the
attachment. In case of exclusion from the Unified Platform, bailiffs and banks are required to continue accepting
electronic statements regarding the electronic attachments imposed so far.
(3) The notification message, the bank's reply, the notice of release, the confirmation of the received message and
all other statements related to the imposition, execution and release of the attachment shall be presented and
maintained in the system by a uniform standard approved by the Governor of the Bulgarian National Bank and the
Minister of Justice.
(4) The requirements for the Unified Platform for Exchange of Electronic Attachments shall be approved by the
Governor of the Bulgarian National Bank and the Minister of Justice.
(5) The electronic statements are deemed received by the addressee by their downloading from the Unified
Electronic Attachment Exchange Platform.
16
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
Despite the stipulation, which has been in force for over four years, attachments on debtor’s
bank accounts are levied through a paper document (attachment notice), which is usually filed
with the respective banking institution via mail or by a process server. In spite of the common
notion that such methodology is both expensive and time consuming, considering the fact that
all technological logistics and infrastructure related to the Unified Electronic Attachment
Exchange Platform have been accomplished and ready for operation, it is hardly
comprehensible that the rule is not applied for the lack of a ministerial ordinance regulating the
technical steps and competences for implementing the process.
It is apparent that presently the state has not formed neither vision, nor plan to subject the
enforcement procedure both for SEO and PEO to mandatory electronic processing. Neither has
it planned to provide the necessary technical infrastructure for the purpose. That leaves the
initiative for such substantial undertaking in the province of the Chamber. Although the PEO’s
guild organization holds both the capacity and the means to develop such system, in order to
achieve an optimal efficiency of such project, it would need certain statutory backing in terms
of regulation and delegated state authority. Such is needed, based on the very nature of the
public function of private judgment enforcement. In case of an electronic document (or case
file), produced by the PEO’s IT system is not granted proper authority by the state via statutory
instruments, the effect of such document could be ascribed as “limited” at best.
5. Monitoring and control
5.1. Monitoring and control over the activities of the Private Enforcement Officers
The profession of Private Enforcement Officers in Bulgaria is strictly regulated by statute.
It is monitored and controlled by the guild organization, the Chamber of PEO, as well as by the
state through the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice. The IT implications of such control
are not direct, but rather auxiliary. Both the Chamber and the Inspectorate are performing
planned as well as incidental (upon complaint) audits of the PEO offices. Those could be
performed by documental review (a PEO is requested to present a copy of one or several case
files) or by checks and interviews on site, at the office of the respective PEO. Both methods do
not involve any electronic access to data or transfer of electronic documents. Even scanned
case files via e-mail are frowned upon by the MJ inspectorate for reasons primarily related to
lack of regulations in that regard. Each audit is finalized with a report, filed on paper, which
either states that PEO operations are compliant with the applicable law, or describes all noted
violations of statute and/or ethics. An adverse audit report may lead to formal recommendations
or to disciplinary action depending on the gravity of the violations.
5.2. Monitoring and control by the Chamber of PEO
The Chamber monitors and controls both adherence to laws and procedures as well as
compliance with rules for funds management, financial and accounting regulations. The major
function of the monitoring process exercised by the Chamber is early assessment and prevention
(6) When the statement is presented by a different standard, mandatory requisites are missing or the sender cannot
be identified, the addressee shall return a message that the receipt is not confirmed and state the reasons thereof.
(7) The bailiff shall make a note of the action taken in the form of an electronic document in the case file, indicating
its location in the Unified Electronic Exchange Platform.
17
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
of professional misconduct and wrongful procedural approaches. In practical terms, the
Chamber performs 2 complete monitoring audits annually, i.e. each one of the 202 (based on
the 2016 annual report of the Chamber) PEO is checked every year. The scope of the
monitoring includes all pertinent procedural, financial and clerical/bookkeeping aspects of the
day-to-day business. Normally the results of any such audits shall be noted in a report focusing
on of recommendations for optimization of certain procedures or avoidance of certain practices.
On occasion, a request for disciplinary proceedings would be filed. For the entire period from
2006 until the end of 2016, there have been initiated and processed 297 disciplinary cases. For
the duration of the said period the Disciplinary Committee has imposed disciplinary sanctions
as follows: 17 reprimands, 139 fines in various amounts up to €5000, 9 warnings for temporary
revocation of license to practice and 16 revocation of license to practice. Considering this
statistics, one has to bear in mind that any sanction is subject to appeal before the Supreme
Court of Cassation, which may confirm, repeal or reduce the sanction7.
5.3. Monitoring and control by the Ministry of Justice (MJ)
The prerogatives of the MJ for exercising control over PEO-s through a body of inspectors
is stipulated by art. 75 and 76 of PEOA. An inspection is assigned by a ministerial order. The
audits are either planned in accordance to the annual schedule approved by the Minister, or
random ones following risk assessments or prompted by complaints or by a proposal of the
Chamber Council. The scope of the audit may vary. It may be an audit of the entire PEO’s
business operation, or may target a particular area, such as certain procedural acts, accounting
practices or a review of one or more file cases. An inspector has the right to free access to the
office and to the official archive of the private enforcement officer and is also entitled to obtain
copies of documents upon request. The inspector also has right of access to the fiduciary bank
accounts under Art. 24.1. PEOA. Inspector’s prerogatives would usually be limited within the
frames of the ministerial order or the proposal for the audit. Depending on the gravity of an
eventual misconduct or statutory violations, the inspector either may move for formal
recommendations by the Minister for the PEO to abide by, or alternatively may file a report
requesting initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
An important and relatively new regulation (enacted in 2015 г.), is Regulation № Н-1 of
February 20, 2015 г. for the rules of the financial audit of PEOs. Despite the fact that since
2007 art. 75а PEOA provides for prerogatives of a specialized body of financial inspectors
within the MJ to monitor exact and correct estimation and accrual of fees (presenting the cost
of execution), correct funds management and reporting, the 2015 regulation provided much
needed details for that particular financial control. The intricacy of the matter in part proved to
originate from a certain dual capacity of the PEO. On the one hand, the PEO administers the
procedure of executing civil titles against the property and other assets of the debtor, which in
essence a state enforcement officer also does. On the other hand, a PEO personally administers
multifaceted and complex financial flows parts of which represent proceeds from debtor’s
assets, fees and VAT deductions therewith. Other part of the administered monies is PEO’s
own income derived both from advanced fees or fees from proceeds of the execution process
and the related income tax, VAT and social security deductions. To make matters even more
7 Detailed information and statistical data may be found at: http://www.bcpea.org/english/articles.php
18
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
complicated, in contrast to a state EO (who is a state employee) a PEO sometimes is an
employer of a significant number of employees, which inevitably brings the problem of
administering their income as well as all related taxes and social dues at the source. Such
complexity of the financial, taxation and social security implications of the profession were not
accounted for entirely in the legislation, much less provided for automated processing via IT
means. In practice each PEO’s office choses the accounting management software which is
usually integrated as a module in the aforementioned IT management systems. A general
standard for complicity is that the final product of those accounting modules abides by the
national accounting and taxation legislation. Although in practice an auditing official would
draw the necessary reference from a PEO’s automated database, they would always compare
the data with the paper source (accounts, invoices, electronic banking printouts), which is
considered the authentic evidence for the operation under scrutiny. IT solutions in the process
of control such as remote access to PEO’s database or virtual exchange of relevant documents
or data are practically non-existent.
6. Organization of disciplinary proceedings
Disciplinary proceedings against PEOs in Bulgaria are conducted by the Disciplinary
Committee of the Chamber which consists of at least eight members. The mandate of the
Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “DC”) is three years. The Minister of Justice appoints half
of the members of the Disciplinary Committee. In practical terms, MJ’s representatives are the
inspectors of the inspectorate. As for the members of the Chamber of PEO, a DC membership
requires at least 5 years of juridical practice or service. A member cannot serve more than two
consecutive terms.
According to art.67 PEOA, a PEO shall bear disciplinary liability for culpable non-fulfilment
of his responsibilities under the statute and the By-laws of the Chamber. The Bulgarian
legislator has not accepted an approach where a definite number of wrongful actions and/or
non-performances of due actions shall constitute disciplinary violation. Although a
Disciplinary Code has been contemplated through the years, there are still a variety of
controversial opinions amongst representatives of the legal profession and the academia
whether codification is the right approach to optimize the element of fairness and justice in the
disciplinary context. At present, the general principle of an effective disciplinary procedure is
for the initiating party (being either an MJ inspector or BCPEO controller) to formulate one or
more formal breaches of statute and present enough evidence to the disciplinary panel for the
latter to impose a punitive writ. On the contrary, should the panel consider that there is not
sufficient evidence of infringement of the law, the disciplinary panel would formally refuse to
impose a sanction. Art. 68.1. PEOA provides for the following disciplinary sanctions:
reprimand; fine from 100 to 10,000 BGN (50 € to 5,000 €); warning for temporary revocation
of license to practice; revocation of license to practice from 1 to 5 years. The law (art.69 POEA)
provides for a statute of limitation on the disciplinary liability which is 6 months as of the
discovery of the violation, but no more than two years after it has been committed. The
disciplinary violation is considered discovered as of the moment the body under art. 70, para.
1, has been made familiar with the violation. In practical terms, those deadlines proved to be
too short where a good defence based on technicalities was performed on behalf of the accused
officer. Thus in the early years of development of the profession, a number of substantial
disciplinary cases failed for either the expiration of the 6 months or the 2 yrs. period. The
19
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
reason for that was that a penalty imposed by the DC does not come into force until the appeal
procedure before the Supreme Court is completed. Often due to a substantial case load, a case
resolution before the Supreme Court took more than two years. Only recently the Supreme
Court of the Republic announced a binding decision (№2/2013) that the 2 yrs. deadline applies
and is current up to the moment of the case referral to the sanctioning body.
In practical terms, disciplinary proceedings are initiated at the request of the MJ or by a
decision of the Chamber Council. Along with the request (or later) a temporary ban to practice
may be asked and respectively granted by the discretion of the Committee. The PEO may file
an answer to the accusations within a 7-day period of the notification. For the actual
disciplinary hearing a panel consisting of two members of the DC and one of the MJ quota is
appointed by the Chairperson of the DC. At the hearing the accused PEO may be represented
by a legal counsel. The decision for the temporary ban to practice is subject to appeal before
the Supreme Court of Cassation within a 7-day term from the notification. In the disciplinary
proceedings all material and/or documentary evidenced as well as witness testimonies are
reviewed, heard in open session and considered by the panel. As general principle, where
explicit procedural rules are not provided by the PEO Act and the pertinent regulations, the
rules of the Civil Procedural Code are applied. By default, it is a classic litigator process, where
no means of IT or automated evidentiary (or process service) exchange is involved. The
decision of the disciplinary panel may be appealed before the Supreme Court of Cassation on
grounds of nullity or inadmissibility, violations of the law, material violations of the procedural
provisions and a clear injustice of the imposed disciplinary sanction. Entitled to an appeal are
the sanctioned PEOs and the Minister of Justice (even in cases where disciplinary proceedings
are initiated by the Chamber Council). The Supreme Court of Cassation considers the appellate
complaint upon its merits by a panel of three judges. The court may declare the nullity of the
decision, annul and suspend the disciplinary proceedings, leave the decision in force or repeal
the decision and change the imposed sanction. The decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation
is final.
In the context of IT management of the process it should be noted that although the nature
of the procedure before the disciplinary panel and the court is not yet supported by any
automated means, the entire clerical process related to the monitoring and disciplinary process
within the Chamber is digitalized and automated by the data management system. Data and
scanned files related to both active and closed disciplinary proceedings could be accessed and
filtered for relevant information via the "Disciplinary and Judicial Practice" module. At the
same time the process of deliberation and consideration of a disciplinary case could be
facilitated by extracting relevant case law using a variety of filtering criteria.
Chapter II: Legislation and procedures on enforcement
1. Legal environment related to enforcement
The subject of the present section and certain specific topics of the Report further on have
been substantially influenced by a very recent legislation8, which although finally voted in
parliament has not been officially promulgated at the moment of drafting the Report.
8 Law amending and supplementing the Civil Procedure Code adopted by the 44th National Assembly on 18
October 2017.
20
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
Regardless of any vocatio legis these amendments shall become a valid statute in Bulgaria
sooner rather than later. The feasible and pragmatic approach of updating the Report would be
to mark the new amendments where applicable and appropriate alongside with the current
stipulations of the same subject matter. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, most of the new
rules rather enrich the existing arrangements, than outright repeal them. For instance an
electronic auction is introduced, but the auction conducted in court (see sections 5.2., 5.3., pg.
28 infra) in the presence of the bidders has not been repealed as a method of selling debtor’s
property. Another example is that service of extrajudicial documents by PEOs has been
introduced, but that did not affect PEO’s present prerogatives to serve procedural papers. A
typical “short-sightedness” of the Bulgarian legislator is demonstrated yet again – no statutory
(or administrative) arrangements have been made for the amendment to relate to the subject
matter regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (see sections 2.1., 2.2., 2.3. on pg.22-24
infra). There is yet another basic reason for present expert to preserve the structure and contents
of the Report. There are number of precedents in Bulgaria, some of which mentioned in the
report (electronic arrest of bank accounts, electronic filings and documents as valid evidence in
court and etc.), where innovative initiatives in the field of e-justice have been existing on paper,
but being dormant in reality for an extensive period time.
The procedural base for civil enforcement in Bulgaria is structured by stipulations in several
fundamental pieces of legislation the major of which, in terms of employment of enforcement
officer’s prerogatives is the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)9, which sets the basic principles
both for functional jurisdiction (territorial and per measure of interest) as well as in regard to
titles, legal grounds and enforcement instruments. Titles enforceable under the CCP are based
on civil claims.
PEOs in Bulgaria also hold prerogatives to enforce public dues based on Art. 2, para. 2 and
3 of the Private Enforcement Officers Act in connection with art. 163, para. 3 of the Code of
Tax Revenue and Social Security Procedure Act (hereinafter “Tax Procedure Code”).
Systematically the receivables to be collected by PEO are set by art. 162, para. 2 and 3 of the
Tax Procedure Code as taxes, excise duties, customs duties, state and municipal taxes and fees,
administrative fines, the claims of the European Union budget on decisions of the European
Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Communities, the European
Central Bank and others. The authorities empowered to entrust the recovery of public debts are
the authorities which have the power to establish such claims. Regarding local taxes and fees,
the competence of the authorities and the relevant procedure is regulated in Art. 4 of the Local
Taxes and Fees Act, as in para. 2 of the cited legal provision, it is expressly stipulated that the
compulsory collection shall be carried out by bailiffs under the procedure of the Civil Procedure
Code. With few exceptions under the procedure of the Tax Procedure Code PEO hold the
prerogatives identical of those of a public enforcement officer, the latter per se being an
employee of the National Revenue Agency.
9 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (SGNo. 59 of 20 July 2007, in force since 01.03.2008 last am. SG. No. 63 of 4
August 2017)
21
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
PEOs have competence of performing the duties of their office under several other laws,
such as the Code of Administrative Procedure and the Special Pledges Act, but their practical
involvement in a measure of a case load under these statutes is relatively insignificant.
Bulgarian legislation follows a general principle, set out in the Obligations and Contracts
Act (in force 1950, last amendment 2008): “the entire property of a debtor presents a universal
collateral for the creditors, the latter having equal rights to obtain satisfaction of the debt, absent
any statutory privileges.” According to well established case law and legal tradition this
stipulation is interpreted in vein that the creditor (who in the Bulgarian doctrine is dubbed
“master of the enforcement process”10) may direct enforcement against any of debtor’s assets,
funds, movables, real estate and etc. That prerogative derives legal authority from the
assumption that the creditor is a holder of a legally sanctioned execution title and the debtor is
in default of the general principle that debts must be satisfied in due course. That prerogative
is not unlimited. There is a statutory list of debtor’s assets (movable, sustenance, clothing etc.)
that are excluded from enforcement. Same is relevant for debtor’s sole residence11. Debtor
also holds the defensive prerogative to offer to the enforcement officer alternative objects to
enforce against and the latter is obliged to make a formal and motivated judgment whether or
not the suggested collateral is equally sufficient to serve creditor’s legitimate interest under the
title (art. 443 CCP). Proportionality of execution is not established in the law. It is rather an
ethical principle of the PEO’s profession in Bulgaria. There is a variety of reasons for that,
however in essence those could be limited to at least 3 basic practical issues:
1.1. Partly due to “tradition” as well as to basic instinct to avoid and deceive ones creditors,
many debtors live on funds or use property formally held in the name of other persons, thus
attaching any property formally in the debtor’s name proves to be an efficient instrument to
“bring” the debtor to the “table of negotiations”, where he/she would provide the funds to satisfy
the debt, which are factually his/hers, but formally are in someone else’s name.” Bulgarian
PEOs (unlike the bailiff of the Russian Federation for instance) do not have any prerogative to
“investigate” whether in terms of law a property used by the debtor is actually the debtor’s
property or not. The PEO may arrest only property that is formally registered in the name of
the debtor (real estate, motor vehicles, sea vessels and etc.) or in regard of movables – any item
found in the factual possession of the debtor. If a third person claims ownership, he/she may
prove that in a court of law.
1.2. Bulgarian legislation imposes an obligation on the enforcement officer to inform the
National Revenue Agency (i.e. the state taxation authority) after any case initiation as well as
before the disbursement of any payments (made either by debtor or a third persons who had
been notified of the enforcement i.e. their dues to debtor being directed to the PEO via an arrest
of debtor’s receivables) as well as of monetary proceeds from auctioning the debtor’s property.
10 Creditor (claimant) in Bulgaria holds strong prerogatives to stop, terminate, as well as to renew or initiate again
the enforcement. He/she also may determine the enforcement measure and the officer is bound by such request
unless officer considers it against the law. Creditor (claimant) holds the legitimate prerogative to appeal any
refusal of PEO to abide by ones requests for enforcement. Should the court reverse the refusal, PEO is obliged to
comply with the court’s decision.
11 Unless another member of debtor's immediate family does not own another residential property.
22
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
The same rule favours the creditors with a registered collateral (such as mortgage, lien or a
special pledge) on debtors property, i.e. EO must notify them once enforcement measures are
directed upon said encumbered property. Accordingly EO must add any such collateralized
debt to the initial debt in the case. Thus, at a certain point of time (and in practice – quite often)
there shall be a new debt on file (“joint debt”), the source of the latter being public dues (e.g.
past due taxes, social security payments, property tax etc.) Such debt is not only a legally
sanctioned enforcement title, but also a privileged one that must be satisfied by PEOs before
the basic debt per initial title, unless that debt is not secured by a higher statutory privilege. For
example, if a debt is securitized by a mortgage on a property, when the property is auctioned
and sold, part of the proceeds that equal the securitized debt shall be paid to the mortgage
creditor and the remaining part, if any – to the Revenue Service. The latter, of course, shall
happen if the debtor still has past due public obligations. If there is no mortgage security on
the initial debt, the public debt would have priority under the same factual situation. Same
principle of scale of privilege is valid in many EU countries as well as other jurisdictions.
1.3. At any point of the enforcement procedure in any particular enforcement case other
creditors of the same debtors may join in the process. This is another hypothesis of joint debt.
The difference with par.1.2 supra is that the PEO does not have the statutory obligation to look
for creditors whose receivables have no registered collateral in a public register and respectively
notify them. Recently the case law12 established yet another obligation for the Bulgarian
enforcement officer to notify and adjoin to the case all the creditors of same debtor who have
been previously recorded (entered) arrest on a certain property, upon which the PEO directs
enforcement.
The above described complications of an enforcement procedure in view of the significant
interindebtedness in the Bulgarian economy present a huge challenge to the functionality both
of the automated management systems of PEO’s offices and their adequate interaction (where
available and possible) with any public register or database related to registration of assets,
statutory and/or contractual encumbrances or public dues.
2. Service of documents
2.1.Service of Documents by Private Enforcement Officers
PEO in Bulgaria performs process service within the frames of the enforcement procedure
conducted by the officer. PEO may also serve judicial papers by an explicit authorization of
the court on case by case basis. As a general rule, PEOs in Bulgaria are not empowered to serve
extrajudicial papers related to civil and commercial matters in an official capacity13. As it shall
be described further, technological means for service of documents in Bulgaria are very limited.
12 Bulgarian Supreme Court Interpretative Decision №2/2013 (BSC Civil and Commercial Department, June 26
26, 2015) 13 After entering into force of Law for amending and supplementing the Civil Procedure Code adopted by the 44th
National Assembly on 18 October 2017 that statement would not be entirely correct. Relevant amendments are
quoted below, although the realistic estimate of their practical implication and juridical effect shall be subject to a
continuous testing by case law and legal doctrine: §76.: in Private Enforcement Officers Act (SG No. 43/2005,
amended, SGNo.39/2006, No.31,59 and 64/2007, No.69/2008, SG No.97/2010,No.82/201, No.49/ 2012)
amendments and supplements are made: 1. Art. 18 para. 5 is amended as follows: "(5) The private enforcement
officers may serve all summons, notices and answers thereof in connection with civil relations and, upon order of
the court, communications and summons in civil matters."
23
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
The general principle (and considered most authoritative and reliable by the courts as a matter
of fact as well as of law) is the service in person to the addressee. The service is performed via
notices on paper. That basic rule is mandatory for the initial notice of enforcement which is
accompanied by a copy of the enforceable title. The addressee would either sign the server’s
copy upon identification or refuse to do so. Addressee’s refusal to formally acknowledge
service is then certified by a formal notice and the signature of the process server. Such service
would be considered legitimate under the law. Should the party in concern is not found at ones
registered address, service to certain category of person of a lawful age, such as family members
as well as others duly registered on the same address, employers, employees and such may
validly accept the service, noting their obligation to hand the documents over to the addressee.
Service to legal entities as well as representing attorneys is straight forward in procedural terms.
Attorneys are not allowed to reject service and legal entities are served at their registered
address according to the respective public register. In both cases if a suitable recipient of the
documents is nowhere to be found, a formal notice of the service is posted at the address and
the recipient is considered duly served after the expiration of a 14 days period designated for
the latter to visit PEO’s office and obtain the papers.
Most procedural complications arise in the case when a physical person (in most cases - the
debtor) could not be found at one‘s registered address (given that no other person would accept
an “in lieu” service) or does not have a registered address in the country at all. In accordance
to art. 47 in connection to art. 430 CCP, also in the light of the Supreme Court interpretation
(see footnote 15) when certain procedural technicalities are accomplished and it is formally
established that the debtor cannot be found, the POE upon claimant’s request, forwards an
application to the district court for appointment of a “special representative” of the debtor. The
latter, being an attorney-at-law, acts as a legal representative in absentia of the debtor for all
procedural purposes including but not limited to process service.
In terms of technological alternatives to the “in-person” process service the notification via
phone, fax or at an electronic mail address have to be mentioned. Such are stipulated by the
procedural law, but rather as secondary or “auxiliary” means of notification. Their application
is pre-conditioned upon urgency and as far as e-mail service is concerned – upon the explicit
consent of the debtor to be notified at a specific e-mail address. Such means of service are not
applicable in the case of the initial notification because the entire concept of debtor’s rights in
the Bulgarian legal doctrine is based on the debtor’s knowledge of the grounds for the
enforcement procedure and all the statutory parameters of the claim. In general terms all kinds
of notification other than an “in-person” service to debtor or a certain third party consenting to
transfer the notice, carries the potential burden of proof on behalf of the enforcement officer in
case the validity of the service is challenged. Each procedural notice contains certain requisites
prescribed by law (CCP) and regulation. The statutory elements of the procedural documents
are mandatory in all cases and for categories of judicial officers to an extent that the omission
of an element may lead to the annulment of a procedural act based on a faulty notification.
2.2.Service of documents on civil and commercial matters under the EU laws
Under the effective statutory provisions, persons interested in delivering of foreign judicial
papers in Bulgaria cannot address directly an officer or a court employee who is otherwise
competent to perform a process service under the Code of Civil Procedure. This is an
opportunity provided by the Community law and Bulgaria has not taken advantage of it yet
(unlike many other Member States). Direct service of documents pursuant to Article 15 of
Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 is not permitted in Bulgaria. The interested party should
forward the documents via (practically) cumbersome mechanism through the respective district
24
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
court. With the adoption of the 2007 Code (art. 42) PEOs were indicated, together with the
employees of the court, post office, courier services and municipal authorities and/or mayors,
as competent servers of judicial papers. The receiving agency pursuant to Article 2(2) of the
Regulation is the district court in whose jurisdiction the documents are to be served. Based on
that, an interested party from another Member State may request from the court to order process
service (or extrajudicial delivery) by PEO. In author’s view there is neither logical nor
pragmatic reason, other than bureaucratic administrative and legislative inertia, for PEOs in
Bulgaria not to be designated as a receiving agency under the terms of the Regulation14.
2.3.Serving Extrajudicial Documents
The option for a service of extrajudicial documents by enforcement officers (both state and
private) is not available in Bulgaria15. Presently such service could be conducted in the form
of notarial notifications (“invitations” per art. 569, subpar. 3 CPC) by the notary publics. This
professional activity is not inherent to the procedural function of the Notary Public office in
Bulgaria who in general terms is competent to process and record transactions of real property
and any related collaterals, encumbrances, easements and etc. Practically very few notary
offices have the qualification, logistic equipment and motivation to perform such function.
Paradoxically PEOs who in Bulgaria perform process service “by trade” in the proceedings
conducted by their offices are not allowed by statute to serve extrajudicial documents, which
proves to be a source of remarkable legislative and juridical inefficiency. Process service is
inherently functionally connected with PEO’s professional activity, i.e. without efficient service
of papers in the enforcement process the enforcement officer could not exist on the professional
market. Accordingly, PEOs maintain personnel of highly skilled servers, logistically equipped
for the job at hand. The Chamber is institutionally involved with the training of such employees,
so that their specialized qualification increases with the development of the profession. PEO’s
service function is substantially automated in order to warrant efficient accountability for the
effective service. Most PEO’s case management systems are equipped with barcode and
scanning devices which follow the issuance, processing and formal designation in the database
as “served” in accordance with the applicable statute of each document. The level of precision
of the process is understandably the professional guarantee that the addressee’s legal rights of
due notification are abode by accordingly.
In terms of legislative solutions for efficient automated service of document, however,
Bulgarian civil procedural legislation and all relevant statute provide extremely limited means
for electronic service. The law (CCP art. 42 sec.4, art. 44 sec.3) provides an option for service
via e-mail, only in the case where an addressee (a party involved in a civil action) provides the
14 For a comprehensive review on the matter of service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in Bulgaria please
refer to “Legal Framework Analysis of the Civil Judgement Enforcement in Bulgaria” by A.Dachev, PEO;
K.Popov, PEO; T.Lukov, PEO and Jos Uitdehaag, Sofia, May 2011, a project of the Center for International Legal
Cooperation, suppprted by the Social Transformation Programme Central and Eastern Europe (Matra) of the
Netherlands Ministry of foreign affairs. 15 This will change after the latest CCP and PEOA amendments enter into force (please review footnote 13)
25
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
e-mail address by one’s own will on a case by case basis. Understandably in the case of a debtor
avoiding service by default such option is to presume the least – unreliable.
3. Access to information
3.1. A centralized approach on a national level toward data focused on indebtedness
(including both public dues and civil claims) is understandably a relatively new concept in
Bulgaria. Compared to Western Europe and the United States, where inception of credit rating
agencies with respective organized archives could be dated back to the end of the 19th and the
beginning of the 20th century, a former “soviet bloc” country (with practically absent private
property, commercial credit and entrepreneurial business ventures from 1944 to 1990) could
hardly be expected to have functional “debt focused” databases on a national scale. That is one
of the reasons for the popularity of the Debtor’s Registry of the Chamber, which is practically
a private enterprise of a guild organization not supported by the state (see pg. 10 supra). Any
existing public databases focusing on debtors as such have either administrative (including
banking administration) and/or fiscal implications. As outstanding in terms of authority among
these are:
3.2. The Central Credit Register of the Bulgarian National Bank16
The Central Credit Register contains information on the current state of a bank credit for the
last reporting period (month). Loans are presented in summary form without any indication of
which reporting agents are submitted. In practical terms the register provides information for
an entity or/and an individual who has active loans in a banking institution as well as loans in
other financial institution. The data contains details by one or more of the following criteria:
- By type of credit - bank guarantee, overdraft, etc.;
- According to days of arrears - from 0 to 30 days, from 31 to 60 days, etc.;
- By remaining term to maturity - up to one year and matured;
- On an agreed term of the loan - up to one year and over one year.
The system would also indicate delays on active and repaid loans including a past period of
five years (60 months) where the client had loans categorized as non-regular or overdue period
other than 0 to 30 days. Newly authorized loans - credits submitted after the last reporting
period (month), with the agreed amount of loans are also included in the system’s report. The
basic purpose of the register is to provide credit rating information to licensed banking
institutions for the purpose of securing responsible decision making and sound credit policies.
Information is accessible to any physical person or entity for one’s own data.
3.3. Debtors Register of the National Revenue Agency
The register is a Public Bulletin under Article 182, Paragraph 3, Item 2 in conjunction with
§ 5, Paragraph 3 of the Tax Insurance Procedure Code. The Bulletin contains 2 lists of legal
and natural persons with unpaid tax and social security obligations. In the first one are the
names, addresses and the following BULSTAT identification code of debtors, which have not
paid their tax and insurance obligations (in excess of EUR 2500) in due time, have not complied
with the statutory notice and do not own substantial assets to serve as collateral. The second
16 (http://www.bnb.bg/AboutUs/AUFAQ/CONTR_CREDIT_REGISTER_FAQ)
26
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
list contains data on public debtors who are in proceedings, do not have permission to defer or
reschedule the obligations or permission to make urgent payments. The second category of
debtors are in possession of assets on which the revenue administration has imposed security
measures as collateral of the public debt. The National Revenue Agency, pursuant to Article
182, para. 3 of the Tax Code, has the right to publicly disclose the names, the unified
identification (BULSTAT) codes and the addresses of public debtors, including the amount of
the debts.
Both, Central Credit Register of the Bulgarian National Bank and Debtors Register of the
National Revenue Agency, do not have direct implication in the operations of the PEO. On the
other hand, public registers containing information of debtor’s property, receivables and other
tangible or intangible assets, which could be subject to enforcement, could be divided in two
major categories for the purpose of the present national report:
3.4. Other registers
3.4.1. Registers, which could be accessed electronically and could be used for enforcement
purposes, such as:
- Commercial Register and Register of non-profit legal entities
- Register of Bank Accounts and Safe Deposit Boxes hosted by the Bulgarian National
Bank
- National Population Database
- National Revenue Agency Database
- The Registry agency
- BULSTAT Register
- The Register of Matrimonial Property Relations
- National Social Security Institute Database
These registers are described in detail in Chapter IV “Access to information” (infra).
3.4.2. Other administrative registers, which by design are created and maintained for the
purpose of administrative control, but are accessible to PEO upon written request and indicate
debtors’ property rights are:17
- Central Registry of Special Pledges
The Special Pledges Act regulates the terms and conditions under which a pledge is created
as a collateral for a debt without actual transfer of the possession of pledged property. Registry
consists of record of contracts and corresponding collaterals such as:
- Special pledges contracts on movable property, except for aircraft and ships;
- Special pledges contracts on receivables;
- Special pledges contracts on totality of receivables, machinery and equipment, of
commodities or materials, and of non-cash securities;
- Special pledges contracts on a future crop for the current or the next economic year;
- Contracts for a special pledge of a commercial enterprise;
- A pledge, under the Mortgage-backed Bonds Act;
- Sales contracts with retention of ownership until payment of the price;
17 Considering the purpose of present report as well as due to the multitude of these databases, the list is not
exhaustive.
27
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
- Leases;
- Distraints of property under Art. 4 of Special Pledges Act (SPA)
- Attachments of secured claim;
- Distraints imposed under the Tax Procedure Code
The register represents public record. Currently, the Register is not available online. An
opportunity to access public information has been provided by electronic application, signed
with certified electronic signature, sent to: [email protected].
- Motor vehicle automated database within the Ministry of Interior
- Firearms automated database within the Ministry of Interior
- Ship Register within the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry
- Agricultural and forestry machinery database within the Ministry of Agriculture, Food
and Forestry
- Register of civil aircraft registered in the Republic of Bulgaria within the Ministry of
Transport, Information Technology and Communications
4. Security of information and confidentiality
Judicial officers are bound by an obligation to protect the personal data revealed in the course
of execution of their duties. According to art. 16 -17 PEOA, PEO’s access to the debtor's
personal data is subject to the requirements of the enforcement process. The office records
(archives) of the judicial officer are inviolable and no one has the right to access it without the
consent of the PEO except in the cases provided for by law. The person who has access to the
official archive of the judicial officer is bound to confidentiality under the statutory conditions
applicable to judicial officers.
PEOs, on their own behalf, are administrators of personal data within the meaning of Art.3,
paragraph 2 of the Personal Data Protection Act. In order to perform duties in full capacity, a
judicial officer must apply to the Personal Data Protection Commission18 for registration as a
personal data administrator. The Commission monitors one’s compliance with confidentiality
obligations both upon complaints and by own initiative and has the prerogative to levy sanctions
for violations of the law.
PEO may process and apply information of debtor’s assets, liabilities and related
encumbrances and easements as long as such information is relevant and up-to-date. The
legitimacy of such usage is not necessarily limited within the frames of a case but rather whether
the information is utilized to satisfy legitimate title(s).
5. Enforcement procedures
As pointed out in Chapter I par. 3 (pg. 7 supra) the application of automated venues for
legally binding dematerialized exchange in terms of judicial procedure in Bulgaria are very
limited. Presently there is not applicable mechanisms for issuing and/or processing of
18 The Personal Data Protection Commission is an independent state body that protects individuals in the
processing of their personal data and in accessing such data, as well as the enforcement of the law. The Commission
is a legal entity subject to budget support. The members of the commission are elected by the Parliament on a
motion by the Council of Ministers for a term of five years.
28
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
enforceable titles or other documents of similar nature. An enforcement case is initiated by a
paper filing in the form of an application by the creditor, accompanied by the enforceable title
and other relevant documents attesting to the capacity of the initiating entity, its representatives
and legal proxies, as well as to the debtor’s status. The enforcement officer in Bulgaria
exercises a monopoly on all the enforcement of court decisions and other enforceable titles in
civil matters starting from the initiation of the case, assessing and appraising debtor’s property,
auctioning debtor’s assets, transferring property and disbursing monies to creditor in
accordance to the statutory order of privileges. Although in practice the majority of the case
management operations in PEOs offices are computerized and automated, the authentic set of
documents representing the statutory legal procedure consists of paper case files.
5.1. Attachment on movables
Presently there are neither statutory basis nor practical applications of electronic means to
levy procedural encumbrances, such as arrests, distrains nor liens on debtor’s movable or
immovable property. An arrest on movables takes effect by serving the notice of arrest to the
debtor. The description of the item(s) subject of execution must either be included in the notice
or a concurrent inventory is conducted. Should an item is subject to enlistment in a specialized
administrative register (e.g. motor vehicles, ships, airplanes and etc.) or to an administrative
register for collaterals (The Special Pledges Register, Bulgarian Register of Shipping and etc.)
the arrest/attachment both as a preliminary security measure or as an enforcement instrument,
must be entered in the respective register as well. Currently all official filings in the registers
as well as attachments, legal notifications and other pertinent operations are performed via
submission of paper documents and respectively – via personal process service or mail. No
electronic means of communication or data transfers are applied.
5.2. Attachment on immovable
The lack of statutory provisions as well as of practical mechanisms in terms of IT instruments
aforementioned in regard to movable property is valid for the immovable property being subject
to enforcement as well. Unlike movables, the immovable property, in terms of acquirement,
titles, transactions and encumbrances thereof is subject to mandatory recording in the land
register and the cadastral register (see Chapter IV, paragraph 1.6, page 47 infra). These registers
are accessible online. Titles and orders of distraint are also digitalized in the register database
through scanned copies in most cases. The mechanism of directing an enforcement against
such property however is applied via filing of the respective request on behalf of the
enforcement officer on paper at the respective regional office of the Registry Agency. Lifting
the procedural encumbrances and/or protective distress is also performed by filing and
recording the officer’s order embodied in a paper document.
As far as electronic auctions of debtor’s property in Bulgaria are concerned, at the moment
of preparation of present report they are yet part of the future. Several versions of pending
legislative bills envisage the introduction of electronic auctions in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Nevertheless, at the present moment all existing varieties of public sales (art.474-481 CCP;
art.487-496 CCP; art.238-253 Tax Procedure Code) as well as sales of debtor’s property
through stores or registered specialized markets, are performed on site via review of bidding
offers by the officer on paper and of verbal announcements where applicable in the physical
29
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
presence of the bidders. The latter is valid both for movable and immovable property subject
to enforcement.19
5.3. Enforcement against Receivables
Debtor’s receivables in Bulgaria are detectable for enforcement purposed through two major
venues. For corporate entities or any person conducting commercial business, an official record
with the National Revenue Agency is maintained. For a VAT registered businesses such
invaluable information is contained in the sales register – a database of all VAT taxable
transactions on monthly basis. The NRA also provides information for other taxable income
of debtor which one is legally bound to report, such as income from rent, payments for leasing
19 That situation has been significantly changed by recent legislative developments: Law for amending and
supplementing the Civil Procedure Code adopted by the 44th National Assembly on 18 October 2017, to wit:
§ 62. In Chapter Forty-third a Section II is created with Art. 501a - 501g: "Section II Electronic public auctions”
Art. 501a. (1) An item under enforcement may be sold under the rules of an electronic public auction.
(2) Upon written request of a party to the enforcement proceedings, the bailiff shall conduct an electronic public
auction. The bailiff may appoint an electronic public auction by own discretion.
(3) The purchase at the electronic public auction may be financed by a bank or credit institution registered under
the Law on Credit Institutions.
(4) Upon a written request of the real estate owner, a bailiff may hold an electronic public auction without a writ
of execution. In the case of a mortgage or special pledge on the property for the auction, the written consent of the
mortgage or pledge creditor is required. The initial price of the property is indicated by the owner and, in the case
of a mortgage or special pledge, by the owner and the secured creditor. The distribution of the amounts received
shall be subject to appeal and shall be subject to appeal under the procedure of Art. 462 and 463.
(5) The Ministry of Justice shall establish and maintain a unified online platform for electronic public auctions.
(6) The Minister of Justice shall issue an Ordinance on the organization, rules and activities of the online platform
for electronic public auctions.
Determination of starting price and announcement of the auction
Art. 501b. (1) The initial price of the items shall be determined by the order of Art. 468 and 485.
(2) The bailiff shall announce the sale under Art. 487 and the Online Public Procurement Platform of the
Ministry of Justice.
Place of the auction
Art. 501c. (1) The place of the electronic public auction is the online platform for electronic public auctions at
the Ministry of Justice.
(2) The electronic public auction is held for 7 days and ends on the day specified in the announcement.
Registering bidders
Art. 501g. (1) For bidding, each bidder makes a deposit in the amount under Art. 489, para. 1.
(2) The bidders' registration shall be made in the electronic environment with an electronic signature or in the
office of a bailiff.
(3) The registration of the bidders for participation in the electronic auction shall last for one month and shall end
at 17.00 on the day specified in the announcement.
(4) The executor of the sale shall authorize or refuse authorization of the registered bidder within 5 days of the
bidder's registration. The bailiff refuses authorization if no deposit has been paid, as in the 490, para. 1.
…….
Organizing an electronic public auction
Art. 501f. (1) The electronic public auction is held for 7 days and ends at 17.00 on the last day in the event that
no new bidding bid has been submitted during the last 10 minutes of the auction.
(2) If a new bidding bid is submitted during the last 10 minutes of the auction, the auction shall be extended
automatically for a further 10 minutes. The auction ends after no bidding bid has been submitted in the last 10
minutes.
(3) Bidding proposals shall be increased by one step. The last bid is public on the online auction platform.
(4) After the electronic public auction ends, the e-auction platform sends an automated message to all authorized
bidders on the price of the property.
(5) The full price shall be paid by the declared to buyer within the term under Art. 492, para. 3. In the case of a
procured buyer, Art. 495.
(6) In case of non-payment of the price, Art. 493.
30
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
agricultural land, leasing movables and etc. Based on that information the enforcement officer
may direct an attachment notice to the person or entity, which potentially owes monies to the
debtor. The latter is a PEO’s prerogative regardless whether debtor’s counterpart has already
fulfilled one’s obligations to debtor or not. Within three days, the counterpart in question is
obliged to provide a formal response to PEO whether there is in fact a pending payment due to
debtor, whether there are other claims against same due payment, whether there are other
attachments based on other enforcement titles on the same due payment. In case there aren’t
any legal obstacles the third party is obliged to pay the due monies to PEO’s fiduciary account
and by that payment his/her debt to the debtor is legally satisfied. The third party’s obligation
to act upon receipt of said attachment notice is warranted by the creditor’s right to a legal action
against the third party should the latter ignores one’s obligations under the attachment notice
and pay directly to the debtor. At present all attachments and related notifications are performed
via paper documents, by filing with the respective party and/or process service. No electronic
means of imposition of distraint or notification is stipulated by law.
5.4. Electronic attachment of commercial company shares
The attachment of commercial company shares is regulated in Art.517 CPC20 and is directly
related to the PEO’s prerogative to investigate a debtor’s company, share proprietorship or a
company which is a debtor itself. The electronic (online) venue to attach commercial company
shares is a relatively new development which marks a significant step towards replacing tedious
official correspondence on paper with a fast, efficient and far cheaper in comparison virtual
process. The attachment is levied by filling out an electronic form on the Commercial Registry
site, signed with PEO’s qualified electronic signature. The PEO fills out the Unified
identification code (UIC) of the Company in which the distraint will be imposed, the data of
20 Art. 517. (1) Distraint on a share of a trade company shall be imposed by sending a distraint notification to the
Registry Agency. The distraint shall be entered under the procedure of registration of a pledge on a share of a trade
company and shall have effect from the moment of its entry. The Registry Agency shall inform the company about
the registered distraint.
(2) When the execution is directed on a share of a general partner, the bailiff, by ascertaining the fulfilment of the
requirements under Art. 96, Para 1 of the Commercial Law, shall present to the company and to the remaining
general partners the statement of the appellant for termination of the company. Upon expiration of six months the
bailiff shall empower the creditor to lay a claim before the district court at the main office of the company for its
termination. The court shall reject the claim if it finds that the receivable of the creditor has been remedied. If it
finds that the claim is grounded, the court shall terminate the company. The termination shall be registered ex-
officio into the commercial register, after which liquidation shall be carried out.
(3) When the execution is directed on a share of a limited partner the bailiff shall serve to the company the
statement of the creditor for termination of the participation of the debtor in the company. Upon expiration of three
months the bailiff shall empower the creditor to lay a claim before the district court at the main office of the
company for its termination. The court shall reject the claim if it finds that the company has paid to the creditor
the share of the property belonging to the partner, determined according to Art. 125, Para 3 of the Commercial
Law. If it finds that the claim is grounded the court shall terminate the company. The termination shall be registered
ex-officio, after which liquidation shall be carried out.
(4) If the execution is directed on all of the shares of the company, the claim for its termination may be submitted
after the distraint is registered and without observing the requirements of Art. 96, Para 1 of the Commercial Law,
without serving of a statement for termination of the company or of the participation of the debtors in the company.
The court shall deny the claim if it finds that the receivable of the creditor is satisfied before the end of the first
session on the lawsuit. If it finds that the claim is grounded, the court shall terminate the company and this shall
be registered ex-officio into the commercial register, after which liquidation shall be carried out.
31
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
the applicant (in this case of the enforcement officer), the data of the person/entity in favor of
whom the distraint is imposed (Personal ID No/Foreigner ID No, business name/title and
UIC/BULSTAT code; if the person does not have a Personal ID No/Foreigner ID No/UIC, the
enforcement officer fills in the address data), date of the court / enforcement officer / public
executor and the number of the case on which the distraint was imposed. The enforcement
officer must also indicate the amount and currency of the sum for which the seizure is enforced,
the amount of interest rate, which is charged on the principal sum and the number of shares and
the data of the Partner(s), whose share is distrained.
5.5. Enforcement against securities
The specificity of the regulation and legal regime of securities as well as the multitude of
varieties of these instruments (including company shares, debt instruments, financial futures
and other derivatives, bills of exchange and etc.) predetermines a special type of expertise in
the area including, but not limited to business and commercial law, financial markets, banking
operations and the related structural and licensing laws and procedures thereof.
A chronic problem of enforcement against securities in Bulgaria is the legislative “lagging”
in terms of specialized enforcement legislation on the subject matter. Until the gradual changes
to the Bulgarian Code of Civil Procedure in the beginning of the XXI century, company shares
and stocks were not eligible object of enforcement. Presently all kinds of securities, regardless
of their form (material or non-material) or whether they materialize monetary claims or other
rights could be enforced upon (art. 515 – 516 CCP). These could be corporate shares and stocks,
temporary certificates substituting stocks, bonds, government securities, subscription rights for
shares of a public company, promissory notes, checks, bills and etc. Regardless of this obvious
utility, there are practical problems. For example, the seizing of material stocks and bonds
suggests their physical seizure by an enforcement officer therefore defining their exact location
(art. 515 CCP). Because of the subjective restrictions (only debtor may be subject of
enforcement) of the writ of execution the enforcement officer can seize bonds (or other material
securities), only if they are in debtor’s possession and in debtor’s premises. If the securities are
in the possession of the debtor, the enforcement officer must ensure that they are debtor’s
property. In case securities are located, in the inventory record of the seizure, the enforcement
officer must make a definitive description and note the means through which it was ascertained
that the securities in question are debtor’s property.
The difference between material and non-material securities is in their holder. Non-material
securities and similar financial and or commercial rights exist by the virtue of their registration
in the register of Central Depository Institution (Central Depository). Central Depository, like
any other government institution, bears the obligation to inform PEO of any registered securities
in the name of the debtor upon request. Seizure is imposed by garnishment (arrest) notice to
the Central Depository. Garnishment is considered imposed not by the entry into the Central
Depository, which in practice may take some technical time (in a measure of days) but upon
receipt of the garnishment notice. Central Depository must immediately inform the regulated
market where the securities are traded (if at all). Within three days after service of the
garnishment, the Central Depository must inform the enforcement agent what kind of bonds the
debtor owes; whether garnishments has been imposed on the same bonds under other writs of
execution as well, and for what claims. Upon receipt of the garnishment communication, any
32
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
transaction with the non-material securities may occur solely by an act of the enforcement
officer. Following garnishment the creditor may move for either an award of the receivables
under the security for collection in lieu of payment or request a public auction. Non-material
securities are to be sold by a bank in the statutory manner established for said securities. The
enforcement officer directs the transaction on the account (expense) of the debtor. The
enforcement process is mediated by the bank in the capacity of a licensed investment broker,
but the sale is compulsory, regardless and despite the will of the debtor.
Presently there are not direct electronic means for attaching and/or auctioning of securities
as subject to enforcement procedure. It has to be noted that the mechanism of electronic
attachment of company shares described in part 5.4, (page 30 supra) is not applicable to
securities. Despite that in the process of establishing the availability and the ownership of said
financial instruments, there could be some elements of electronic database references or
notifications via electronic means, all substantial operations related to the legal substance of the
enforcement procedure are performed via paper documents, by filing with the respective entity
and/or process service.
5.6. Enforcement on receivables, trademark, patent license, industrial samples and
other intangible property rights
There is not direct mechanism in the Code of Civil Procedure, and in any other law for that
matter, for enforcement against receivables21. Despite the insistence in legal doctrine and
among law practitioners in Bulgaria for regulating the attachment and auctioning of receivables,
the legislator has not presently accepted that. The market of receivables in Bulgaria, though, is
substantial. This method of enforcement is used in cashing down debtor’s assets included in the
insolvency estate under the provisions of Section IV of the Bulgarian Commercial Act. It is also
regulated by the Bank Insolvency Act (arg. Art. 76, Par. 3 Bank Insolvency Act). Bulgarian
legislation has accepted, on the account of this that receivables may be assigned to the creditor
under art. 510 CCP. The existing statutory frame of judicial enforcement suffers a substantial
deficit since a receivable may be assigned in lieu of payment but there is not legal stipulation
for inventory and public auction of receivables.
Recent legislative developments (Law for amending and supplementing the Civil Procedure
Code adopted by the 44th National Assembly on 18 October 2017) finally “made-up” for a long
expected enforcement means – arrest and auctioning of rights, subject to industrial property.
According to the newly adopted article 518a of the Civil Procedural code judicial enforcement
may be directed at a trademark, patent, utility model, industrial design, integrated circuit
topology, plant variety and (animal) breed certificate. The sale of such intangible property rights
is conducted by the judicial officer in the fashion of public auction of immovable property at a
starting price being determined by the order of art. 468 and 485 of CCP. To secure creditor’s
claim and warrant the accomplishment of the enforcement process, the judicial officer may levy
an attachment of the debtor's right on the respective intangible asset, by filing an arrest order in
the state register for the respective assets and/or intellectual property rights. The collateral
imposed would have effect vis-à-vis the proprietor of the respective object or the exclusive
21 Please take note that “receivable” in present context denotes a documented debt, which is subject to a
transaction as a whole asset as in cession contract
33
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
licensee from the date of receipt of the notice of arrest, while in relation to third parties, from
the date of entry of the arrest into the respective state register.
The sale is entered in the state register at the request of the buyer or upon a notice of the
judicial officer, accompanied by the formal deed of assignment of property. A new certificate
of entitlement (or respective license) is issued to the new proprietor.
The property transfer shall have effect in relation to third parties from the date of the entry
in the register, unless there are special statutory stipulations for the transfer of rights to take
effect from the date of a publication.
In the case of judicial enforcement against objects of industrial property, the applicable rules
shall correspondingly refer to the stipulations of art. 21 of the Marks and Geographical
Designations Act, art. 4 of the Patents and Registration of Utility Models Act, art. 24 of the
Industrial Design Act, art. 19 of the Topography of Integrated Circuits Act and art. 6 of the Law
on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and Animal Breeds.
The new legislation does not directly provide for electronic means for attaching and/or
auctioning of said objects of industrial property. Since the registration and data management
of related state registers are sufficiently computerized, more so qualified is the staff handling
the procedure, there is reason to believe that dematerialized means of enforcement shall soon
find a way through.
5.7. Attachment on bank accounts
5.7.1. Electronic attachment (arrest) of bank accounts
Electronic attachment of funds available in debtor’s bank account (see footnote 6 on pg.15
supra) was introduced by art. 450a (1) CPC in 2011. In 2013 the technical platform - Unified
environment for exchange of electronic distraints was created. Effective as of 1st of January,
2013, the attachment on debtor's bank account is supposed to be imposed by the enforcement
officer through attachment notification in electronic form, signed with qualified electronic
signature, via the Unified Environment for Exchange of Electronic Distraints. As mentioned
above, the stipulation is dormant for the lack of joint regulation for a single standard on behalf
of the Justice Ministry and the National (Central) Bank. The attachment notice, the bank’s
answer, the notice of the lifting of the attachment, the confirmation of the message received and
other statements concerning the imposition, implementation and lifting of the seizure (presently
all written on paper and physically delivered in each bank) are to be submitted and maintained
in the system through a single standard approved by the Chairman of the National Bank and the
Minister of Justice. The implementation of electronic attachments would reduce the cost of the
process substantially. The lack of implementation of this effective mechanism is one of the sad
examples of a mismatch of priorities and bureaucratic glitches of the Bulgarian administration.
Chapter III: Technical aspects
1. E-Justice Initiatives related to enforcement procedures:
1.1. Service of documents
Besides the detailed reference on the subject set out in Chapter II, par. 2 (pg. 22 supra) there
are no e-justice initiatives related to the service of documents per se in the procedural legislation
related to enforcement in Republic of Bulgaria. Even in most recent major legislative
34
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure (voted in Parliament on October 18th 2017) the
emphasis is on a very conservative “in-person service” approach targeting utmost debtor’s
protection.
1.2. Existing databases and systems hosting information related to enforcement of
claims. Access to information.
There are many databases functioning in Bulgaria which host information related to debtor’s
status and property rights and are entirely or in part digitalized (e.g. notary deeds database
within the Registry Agency, Central Register of Special Pledges; Patent Agency; Automated
System for Motor Vehicles Registration and etc.). At present however, they do not allow
remote access for the purpose of judicial enforcement. This is partly due to a lack of
administrative capacity both in terms of technical logistics and competent agency personnel,
and in part to an ever present concern in the Bulgarian political mentality that streamlining of
enforcement would unduly hurt debtor’s rights. The access of the judicial officer to information
in such databases is through official correspondence (on paper) in writing. These databases
have been generally accounted for above, and because the focus of present chapter is automated
access to information, the following review concerns only databases accessible strictly by
electronic means.
1.2.1. Automated references and extraction of information. Automated enforcement
procedures:
- National Population Database: the data from this register is accessible through remote
access by the PEO, via a secured channel using qualified electronic signature in compliance
with the requirements of the Electronic Document and Electronic Signature Act. For details,
please review Chapter IV, section 1.1. (pg. 44 infra)
- National Revenue Agency Database for reported real property, motor vehicles, registered
employment contracts, income from rent and other taxable revenue, VAT taxable transactions
and etc. The access to the database is somewhat of a “hybrid nature”: the PEO’s access to file
an enquiry is through a segment of the Agency web site, which is granted via a special log,
unique for each enforcement officer where PEO’s electronic signature is used. Detailed
information of debtor’s particulars, PEO’s status as well as case registration number are to be
entered into the system. The requested information, on the other hand is sent to the PEO via e-
mail message from NRA where the relevant information is contained in a scanned document.
- Register of Bank Accounts and Safe Deposit Boxes hosted by the Bulgarian National Bank.
The database is accessible the same way as the above described registers. PEO is identified via
qualified electronic signature and enters information about the debtor, the PEO’s capacity, case
registration number to receive information on debtor’s bank accounts and / or safe deposit
boxes. For detailed description of registers functionality, please review Chapter IV, section 1.3.
(pg. 45 infra).
- National Social Security Institute Database for registered employment contracts and related
social security withholding, as well as information for state pensions. Unlike the Revenue
Agency system, PEO is granted access to debtor’s information in the database, through one’s
qualified electronic signature. PEO must fill out an on-line application with information of
debtor’s particulars, PEO’s status as well as case registration number.
35
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
1.2.2. Automated enforcement procedures:
In order to levy an electronic arrest (attachment) on company shares, which at present is the
only electronic arrest in the practice of Bulgarian judicial enforcement, PEO must fill out an
electronic application on the Commercial Register web site, signed by a qualified electronic
signature. For detailed description of the attachment mechanism, please review Chapter II,
section 5.4. (pg. 30 supra).
2. Systems for e-signatures and data access systems
In general terms qualified electronic signature represents a duly certified electronic device
designed to replace a personal written signature where transfer of digital information is sought
instead of physical transfer of a paper document. By definition and statute the electronic
signature is a unique designation of a physical person and the very process of issuing one
warrants sufficient identification by the certified provider of the potential holder of the
electronic signature. The electronic signature is a unique pair of digital keys. The first key is
private and secret. It combines something the key owner holds with something he knows. It is
generated and stored on a smart card possessed by the key owner. Access to the card and the
key in it is belongs to the key owner (him being the owner of the signature) via the ARC code
(the unique code he knows). The signature holder signs with the private key. The other key of
the pair is public. It is necessary to read the signature with the private key. The public key is
held and published by the respective provider for each signature issued, provided it is authorized
by its owner and can be viewed and downloaded by anyone. This makes it possible to read the
documents signed by the respective owner of the private key. If a public key other than the key
in the pair is used, the signature cannot be read.
Although it would hardly be any different both as concept and as technical parameters from
any EU jurisdiction, the electronic signature in Bulgaria warrants authenticity and veracity as
well as irrevocability of the signed electronic document. A signed electronic document remains
authentically signed, regardless of whether it is stored on magnetic, optical or other media,
whether it is sent by e-mail or accessed via the Internet. Under present active legislation placing
an electronic signature means that:
- The signatory is identified as the author of the electronic document;
- The signatory has agreed with the content of the document;
- The signatory has protected the document from subsequent changes.
Qualified electronic signature is an advanced electronic signature, which is accompanied by
a certificate for qualified electronic signature issued by the CSProvider which meets the
requirements of Art. 24 of the LEDES22 and certifying the relationship between the author and
22 Certificate
Art. 24. (1) The certificate is an electronic document, issued and signed by the certification-service-provider,
which contains:
1. indication that the certificate was issued for a qualified electronic signature;
2. the name and address of the certification-service-provider and the country in which provider’s business is
established;
3. the name or alias of the author of the electronic signature;
36
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
the public key for signature verification. It is created using a secure signature creation device
(SSCD + PP). The Qualified Electronic Signature Certificate contains information about the
Signatory (Author) and the represented person (Holder), such as:
• Name / Company or organization name
• PIN (or personal alien number)
• Single Identity Code - UIC (if company)
• Address
• Other data
Electronic signatures provide a high level of security, guaranteed in two ways:
• By encrypting the signature itself
• Via the private-public key system
The document signed with an electronic signature is protected from changes. Once signed,
any change makes the signature invalid and the recipient is warned that the document has not
retained its original content.
The most commonly used encryption system in the data access and dematerialized exchange
related to the judicial enforcement in Bulgaria is the asymmetric data encryption system based
on a pair of public and private keys. The private key is used to generate and encode the
electronic signature using a specific algorithm. This allows only the person who created the
electronically signed document to access it. The private key is associated with a corresponding
public key, which allows the encrypted message to be read and the e-statement and the integrity
of its content authenticated by anyone holding the public key.
As far as systems for e-certification of judicial officers and systems for initialization of
enforcement proceedings are concerned, such specialized approaches are not yet established in
Bulgaria. Judicial officers are granted qualified electronic signatures as well as other
specialized (key/token) devises under the same statutory rules as other qualified individuals,
entitled to administer secure electronic data transfers. Access of PEOs to restricted databases,
based on PEO’s public prerogatives is granted not based on any e-certification but rather based
on their professional capacity, regardless of whether these databased are approached via
electronic means or paper requests for obtaining debtor’s information.
3. Directory services
4. special requisites associated with the author if the certificate is issued for a specific purpose, and if the
provider maintains a policy of issuing certificates with the entry of such requisites;
5. the public key corresponding to the private key held by the author for the creation of the qualified
electronic signature;
6. the advanced electronic signature of the certification service provider;
7. the period of validity of the certificate;
8. limitations on the effect of the signature on the purposes and / or the value of the transactions if the
certificate is issued with the limitation of the certification act;
9. the unique identification code of the certificate;
10. Instruction on the accreditation of the supplier when he is accredited.
(2) (Revoked - SG 100/10, in force from 01.07.2011).
(3) (Revoked - SG 100/10, in force from 01.07.2011).
(4) The entitled person and the author shall be obliged to immediately notify the provider of certification
services of any changes in the circumstances stated in the certificate.
(5) Changes in the circumstances stated in the certificate cannot be opposed to third bona fide persons.
37
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
Based on the objective of the ENABLE project, to wit: e-justice solutions for access and
exchange of information among judicial officers, following comments are based on the
assumption that a subject of interest for the purpose of the report are directories of licensed
legal professionals, organized in professional “guilds” such as judicial officers, notaries and
attorneys-at-law. These are the three categories of legal professionals functioning as liberal
professions in the Republic of Bulgaria, who perform the major functions related to
administration of justice and implication of legal rights and obligations. All three are strictly
licensed and regulated by the state. All practicing professionals must hold MA degree in Law
(as a minimal professional standard), have undertaken mandatory practical training and have
passed state exam per art.294-301 of Judicial Authority Act. All of these three groups of
professionals are also licensed through a specialized testing procedure according to the
respective regulatory statute to perform their specific professional duties23.
- Register of the Notary Chamber of Republic of Bulgaria (http://www.notary-
chamber.org/en/notaries). Organization responsible for the maintenance of the register is The
Notary Chamber of the Republic of Bulgaria is a full member of the Association of European
Network of Registers of wills. According to the information from the Chamber’s web site, the
Bulgarian register is linked to the European Network of Registers of wills. The Notary
Chamber, which is the sole professional organization of notaries in Bulgaria, is competent to
manage matters related to licensing, membership and control thereof. The register is accessible
on-line and is updated on regular basis. It reflects the active professional status of notaries and
their authorized assistant-notaries. The register provides up-to-date information for location,
area of jurisdictionas well as contact information for the respective notary.
- Register of the Chamber of Private Enforcement Officers of Republic of Bulgaria
(https://www.bcpea.org/english/ss.php). Organization responsible for the maintenance of the
register is the Chamber of PEOs. The register is accessible online and is updated on a regular
basis. The register provides up-to-date information for all acting private enforcement officers
and licensed PEO assistants in Bulgaria, address of offices, area of jurisdictions, contact
information for each PEO. Relevant information is provided of suspended PEOs, as well as the
statutory ground thereof.
- Bulgarian Bar Register – official register for practicing attorneys-at-law (http://bar-
register.bg/public/StartPage.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fpublic). Organization responsible for the
maintenance of the register is the The Supreme Bar Council of Republic of Bulgaria. The
register is accessible online and is updated on regular basis. The register provides up-to-date
information for all acting attorneys-at-law, district bar association of membership, licensed
junior attorneys and assistants, lawyer partnerships and law firms in Bulgaria, address of
23 Private Enforcement Officers Act – Chapter II, sec. 1, art. 5-13 “Acquiring Legal Capacity of a
Private Enforcement Officer”
Notaries and Notarial Practice Act - Chapter II, sec. 1, art. 11-15 “Acquiring Legal Capacity of a
Notary”
Bulgarian Bar Act - Chapter II, art. 6-9 “Acquiring Legal Capacity as an Attorney-at-Law”
38
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
offices, area of practice, contact information. Relevant information is provided of suspended
practitioners as well as of imposed disciplinary sanctions under the Bulgarian Bar Act.
4. Electronic Communication Infrastructures
As commented in Chapter I section 2.2 pg. 4-9 above, despite voluminous strategic planning
on highest government level and several “in construction” projects such as the Unified e-Justice
Portal (https://ecase.justice.bg/), practically there is no functioning nationwide infrastructure
for e-justice exchange. By design the portal is supposed to provide online access to digitalized
case information as well as filing of evidence in form of an electronic documents directly with
the trial court. In reality there is active connection to just 10 out of 113 district courts and 8 out
of 28 provincial courts. There is partial case digitalization within the court system for cases
filed for the last 2-2 ½ years and cases are exchanged as scanned copies among different courts
mostly for the purposes of appeal reviews. No universal digitalization is feasible in the near
future, considering current IT capacity, much less a functioning system for secured exchange
of electronic data as part of the case processing and adjudication. For security purposes judges
are restricted from “external” exchange of case information via an e-mail with the parties to a
case or their attorneys-at-law. One limited exception is the service via an e-mail through the
respective court clerk’s office, in the case where such e-mail address is explicitly agreed and
granted by the party on case by case basis. Based on the above, no national interoperability
framework in the area of e-Justice could be claimed to be presently existent in Bulgaria. Much
less it could be claimed that national secure e-delivery infrastructure supporting electronic
service of documents and exchange of sensitive information exists. Due to low administrative
capacity and lack of IT qualification within the civil service in general, solutions, even at highest
legislative level, are conservative and at times - obsolete. Recent CCP amendments affirmed
yet again in person service by a judicial process server not only of paper versions of the
summons (notices) but of paper versions of the enforcement title and all pertinent addendums
as the legitimate means for valid inception of the procedure. According to § 27 of the Law for
amending and supplementing the Civil Procedure Code adopted by the 44th National Assembly
on 18 October 2017 the notice of enforcement in the case of a debtor – physical person, must
not only be served in person, but the particulars of the service be explicitly marked on each
page of said paper documents.
5. Access to ICT Networks and Facilities
5.1. eIDAS e-signature and eSeals legislation
Based on Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (Regulation / eIDAS) of the European Parliament
and of the Council on Electronic Identification and Certification Services for Electronic
Transactions in the Domestic Market, Bulgarian legislator adopted the Electronic Identification
Act and implementing rules thereof, of an electronic identity certificate, a formalized official
electronic document, represented by a generally accepted standard, issued with a fixed term of
validity and containing an electronic identifier and other pertinent data.
EIDAS's scope of action and new regulatory mechanisms include administrative-
institutional relations of governance. Electronic submissions related to filing an application,
entry in registers, updating of personal information, etc. digital interactions are granted equal
status as such done in the physical presence of the individual with a valid ID document. The
39
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
project constitutes a comprehensive infrastructure through which all state systems can identify
citizens. In compliance the Electronic Governance Act (E-Governance Act), a new State
Agency for Electronic Governance (SAEG) is established at the Council of Ministers, which
envisages the establishment of an electronic identification center. The Agency shall cooperate
and interact on e-Governance issues with the competent authorities of the Member States of the
European Union, the institutions of the European Union and other international organizations.
The Agency will coordinate the adoption and implementation of government standards in the
area of e-Governance. The E-Governance Act also provides for the creation of a new state
company "Unified System Operator". It will carry out public functions by supporting the
activities of the SAEG as an information contact center for serving citizens and businesses as
well as government bodies using the shared information resources. The company is meant to
build and maintain a National Spatial Data Portal to connect with the Geospatial Info
Infrastructure for Spatial Information of the European Community (INSPIRE).
The implemental regulations to the E-Governance Act allows the use of existing means of
identification, and they will be able to pass through the same process through which the new
electronic identity. These are, for example, the Qualified Electronic Signature (QES) and the
PIC of the National Revenue Agency. From the user's point of view, this means entering the
administration site, clicking on the "sign in" button, selecting an input (e-ID, QES, PIC).
Implementation of the new legislative frame shall create a national point of integration with
other Member States (under EU Regulation 910/2014) so that Bulgarian citizens may use
electronic services in EU MS. In practical terms the development of said infrastructure is yet
ongoing. The Electronic Identification Act was passed in May 2016, and the regulation - few
months later. On these basis a technical specification was prepared by the end of 2016. The
public order for the system itself was announced in May 2017 after a contract with the
Managing Authority of the Operational Program "Good Governance" was signed and the entire
documentation under the Public Orders Act was prepared. As long as the entire operation is
warranted by an adequate budgetary funds there are sufficient grounds for positive expectations.
As most of the effective IT solutions on a government level in Bulgaria however, this one is
still part of the future.
Recently, two pieces of implemental regulations were introduced, which establish the
framework for electronic process in the court system. Ordinance No. 5 of 1.06.2017 of the
High Judicial Council on the organization and order of keeping, preserving and accessing the
electronic cases and the way of keeping the evidence and the means of evidence in the cases as
well as the internal turnover and the storage of other information processed by the judicial
administration (SG, No. 47 of 13.06.2017) was issued on the grounds of Art. 360i of the Judicial
System Act. Also Internal Rules for the Use of Electronic Signature and Electronic
Identification by the Judiciary Authorities, was adopted by the the Supreme Judicial Council
on the grounds of Art. 360k of the Judicial System Act with a decision under item 39 of Protocol
No. 10 of 16.03.2017 (promulgated, SG, No. 32 of 21.04.2017). Based on these implemental
rules it is expected that gradually the judicial system would begin processing electronic cases
based on dematerialized applications, evidence and corresponding procedural mechanisms
based on the existing legislative framework described in Chapter I, sec. 2.2. (page 4 supra).
5.2. The Electronic Document and Electronic Signature Act (EDESA) came into force
in 2001 and granted electronic documents legal weight and legitimacy of authentic statements,
40
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
which up to that moment had signed and stamped (where necessary) paper documents.
Additionally, the signing with a basic, advanced or qualified electronic signature was
recognized in terms of legal significance and ensuing consequences to possess the value of a
handwritten signature.
EDESA is consistent with the provisions of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council of 13 December 1999 for a Community framework for electronic
signatures (in force as of 20.01.2000). Furthermore, it is also consistent with a number of
existing legislative solutions in other countries. Amendments subject to current vocatio legis24,
it will implement the provisions of the Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 on Electronic
Identification and Certification Services for Electronic Transactions for the Internal Market.
The new texts are to create rules for a wider range of electronic authentication services -
creation, verification, and validation of electronic signatures and electronic stamps, as well as
electronic time stamps, confidential e-mail services and authentication of web sites. The title of
the law is also subject to modification, to wit: Electronic Document and Electronic Certification
Services Act.
The legislation sets out that the devices for creation of qualified electronic signatures and
seals will be subject to certification in order to ensure their compliance with the Regulation
(EU) No 910/2014. Certification organizations will be accredited by a national authority - the
“Bulgarian Accreditation Service” Executive Agency. The status of the certification service
providers is also regulated – an entity issuing electronic signatures certificates and maintains a
public electronic register thereof. The provider must warrant signature holder’s ability to create
private and public keys as well as granting access to the certificates register on behalf of third
parties. The requirements for the providers, their obligations and responsibilities to signature
holder and third parties are detailed to ensure a high standard of reliability and security of
electronic signatures. Amending legislation also establishes corresponding responsibilities of
the holder and author of the electronic signature towards third parties and provider. The
relations between the certification services provider and the holder of the electronic signature
are to be regulated by a written contract.
The entities filing to be certified as providers of qualified certification services apply to the
Communications Regulation Commission. The content of the application is explicitly stated in
art. 6, sec. 2 of the Ordinance on the Procedure for Registration of the Certification Service
Providers. The Commission (http://crc.bg:8080/dpls/apex/f?p=923:310:745170100245528) is
entrusted with creating, maintaining and publishing lists of the Providers of Certification
Services. Presently, there are 6 registered certification service providers in Bulgaria:
“Information services” AD (http://www.stampit.org)
“BORICA – BANKSERVICE” AD (http://www.b-trust.org)
“Infonotary” EAD (http://www.infonotary.com)
“SPEKTAR” AD25 (http://www.spektar.org)
“SEP BULGARIA” AD (http://www.esign.bg/)
“Evrotrust Technologies” AD (http://www.evrotrust.com)
24 EDESA – additions and amendments SG №101 of 20.12.2016, in force as of 1.01.2018. 25 As of October 10, 2016, Spectar AD, in its capacity as a certification services provider, transferred its operations
to Eurotrust Technologies AD
41
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
5.3. Participation (or planning thereof) in cross border e-Justice activities (as per e-
CODEX, Access to e-CODEX).
Presently there is no publicly accessible evidence that Bulgaria does participate in the e-
Justice Communication via Online Data Exchange project, “e-CODEX”. Despite an ongoing
deliberations and positive recognition regarding such network within the Ministry of Justice
and the High Judicial Council, there is no formal resolution originating from an official
government body authorizing joining the project. While researching the matter, present expert
encountered contradicting official statements and claims as to the level of involvement of
Bulgaria in the cross border e-Justice activities. Nonetheless, the official source of the
European Commission, to wit: (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/european-e-justice/e-
codex/index_en.htm) does not list Bulgaria as participating country. For the purposes of
assessing the comprehensiveness of the above conclusion, it has to be noted that the Bulgarian
Chamber of Private Enforcement Officers is a non-government professional body and as such
is not involved in the policy making process of said public institutions (MJ, HJC), neither it is
entitled to information thereof by statute, political tradition or equity.
5.3. Cross border e-Justice activities
Presently Bulgaria does not participate in the e-Justice cross border activities as far as civil
and commercial matters are concerned. Should such activity exists, it does not represent public
record and the Chamber of Private Enforcement Officers in Bulgaria is not acquainted thereof.
5.3.1. At present, to author’s best knowledge and belief, Bulgaria has not launched a program
for cross-border services for e-Justice in the field of European Payment Orders, Small Claims
or Mutual Legal Assistance. Should such program exists, it does not represent public record
and the Chamber of Private Enforcement Officers in Bulgaria is not informed thereof. In formal
legislative as well as practical terms said procedures are conducted in the manner described
below. Same is the expert’s position in regard of the country’s involvement in European
Interconnection of Registries Activities.
5.3.2. Execution of European Payment Order (EPO)26
Applications for issuance of EPO have be submitted to the provincial court with jurisdiction
over the permanent address or registered address of the debtor, or over the place of enforcement.
Where contestation is not excludable, the respondent may object territorial jurisdiction no later
than the deadline for contestation. The respondent may apply to the Supreme Court of Cassation
for review of the European order for payment in accordance with Article 20 of the Regulation.
The court examines the application pursuant to Chapter 24 of the CCP “Annulment of
judgments”. Process service related to EPO is performed by officer of the court, by postal or a
courier service as registered mail with return receipt. Republic of Bulgaria has taken position
EPOs are to be accompanied by a translation into Bulgarian.
5.3.3. Small claims27
An application for a writ of execution on the basis of a European Enforcement Order for an
uncontested claim or a European Small Claims Procedure shall be filed with the district court
26 Art. 625-627 of Bulgarian Civil Procedural Code in Compliance with REGULATION (EC) No 1896/2006 27 Art. 624 of Bulgarian Civil Procedural Code in Compliance with REGULATION (EC) No 861/2007
42
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
at the debtor's permanent address, respectively registered address of entity.
The order for issuing (or rejection) of the the writ may be appealed in accordance with Art. 623,
para. 6 CCP. Term for appeal by the petitioner is counted from the service of the order and by
the defendant from service of the notice for voluntary compliance. The appeal of the order does
not suspend the enforcement process. Suspension or limitation of the execution in the sense of
Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 may be ordered by the competent court.
5.3.4. Involvement in European Interconnection of Registries Activities.
Presently there is no public information of Bulgarian involvement in European
interconnection of registries activities on institutional and/or government centralized level.
That statement is subjected to the premise that such involvement includes but is not limited to
dynamic real time dematerialized exchange of case relevant information on civil and
commercial matters. The relevancy of the statement could not be influenced by some instances
of data exchange on a professional (“guild”) level such as professional networks of PEOs and/or
attorneys.
As far as subjects related to criminal justice are concerned, present expert considers such out
of the scope of the report.
6. ICT Processing and Storage Services
Presently the level of automated input, processing, control and communicative output of
dematerialized data relevant to the judicial process and to the judicial enforcement in part, is as
described in Chapter I, sec. 2.3, pg. 7-9 supra. Procedurally relevant technological approaches
such as voice recognition, electronic recording (aside from strictly criminal investigative
implications) of proceedings, collection and use of electronic evidence are not utilised despite
of the existing legislative framework. Present expert is not able to comment on “national
policy” on the matter since such, apart from ample and general political statements, has not
been extended by competent authorities to the Chamber of PEO as a coherent system of
practical steps with short or middle term feasible results. Present expert also states that the
above assertions does not regard to strictly investigative practices of gathering and international
exchange of data related to crime prevention or investigation measures, which are strictly within
the prerogatives of the police and prosecutorial authorities. Such investigative instruments are
classified and in the general case do not represent public record.
6.1. Archiving of enforcement proceedings
6.1.1. The storage of hard copies
The effective legislation does not envisage mechanisms for either PEO or the SEO at the
district courts for (1) outsourcing of the archiving of completed cases and/or (2) archiving on
electronic copies of completed cases and destruction of paper documents. Current implemental
rules - Ordinance No. 4 on the Official Archive of the Private Enforcement Officers (Ordinance
No. 4) and the Court Administration Regulations envisage the completed (finished and
terminated) enforcement cases to be kept in the offices of enforcement officers for a term of 5
years; after which to be delivered for storage in the State Archive Fund (SAF). Prior to delivery
to the SAF, the originals of the writs of execution and the other securities should be taken out
of the record files which should be kept at the offices of the private enforcement agents. Due
43
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
to unofficial position of the SAF, that enforcement cases do not fall into the definition of “state
archives” that provision has been dormant since its very inception. On the other hand, the
uncertainty remains that the destruction of paper files without legal authorization may be
considered a serious offense by the authorities. Thus the storage of hard copies of the completed
cases in the PEO’s offices is becoming an ongoing and unsolved problem, generating
substantial cost as well as data security concerns. Physical storage of the cases is also pointless
from a legal point of view – the best part of the documents on file are comprised of information
derived from state registers and any substantial legal rights obtained through the process (e.g.
title for an auctioned property) are subject to registry records. After the 5 years period it is only
logical for the parties to take responsibility for any document related to their legal rights. An
electronic copy of the digitalized file would be an efficient solution to the problem and is one
of the PEO Chamber priorities to be introduced in the future legislative process.
7. ICT professional and technical support training
7.1. Training policy for e-skills and programmes for professionals in the e-Justice
sector
There are not training programmes for professionals focused on e-skills per se. There are
two major training institutions in Bulgaria the activities of which fall within the scope of present
report, NIJ and ESJE, but neither of them have its focus on promotion of e-Justice.
Nevertheless, it would be these two institutions that have the authority and the means to conduct
training in the e-Justice sector. De facto training of professionals is practically sporadic and
within the respective section of the system (segment of judicial system, prosecutor office, etc.)
upon introduction of certain case management or data processing software. As it was
previously commented, in previous years IT solutions have been introduced rather sporadically
within separate agencies or departments, never on national level in integrated and functional
manner. Hence the training to operate the respective systems has been usually conducted “on
the field” by the respective system provider, seldom through seminars addressing the personnel
of the respective department. Likewise, technical training and seminars in the area of IT
applications for judicial officers are conducted by the companies generating the respective
software, as described in Chapter I, sec. 4.4., pg. 13-16 supra.
7.2. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
NIJ is a public institution, providing training for the Judiciary since 2004. The regulatory
framework of NIJ is contained in Chapter 11 of the Judiciary System Act and respective
implemental regulations enacted by the High Judicial Council. The focus of NIJ’s operations
is to improve the efficiency judicial process through professional training and enhancement of
qualification of Bulgarian magistrates and court clerks as well as to assess training needs and
perform as documentation centre in EU Law for the Judiciary. The NIJ is an independent entity
funded by the budget of the Judiciary and proceeds from various projects. NIJ activities by
statute are supervised by the High Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice which hold
certain prerogatives related to staff management and policy making. NIJ provides compulsory
initial training for junior magistrates (judges or prosecutors) who have successfully passed the
entry tests. NIJ also conducts continuing training for all sitting magistrates. The emphasis in
these qualification courses is laid upon the current amendments to legislation, changes in
44
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
jurisprudence, interdisciplinary topics and training in EU Law. The institute also carries out
training of court administrators (judicial clerks, HR managers and etc.)
7.3. European School of Judicial Enforcement (ESJE)
ESJE is a non-government entity under the auspices of the Bulgarian Chamber of PEO,
whose purpose is to ensure better training for both bailiffs, assignees in bankruptcy, lawyers
and businessmen. The school is also open to anyone who wants to learn more about a topic
related to enforcement. The focus of ESJE educational activities is the practical aspect of
enforcement, application of European law in cases of enforcement of cross-border judicial
instruments or writs establishing public debt.
8. Hosting
The subject matter of hosting of services and data in the judicial system of Bulgaria is not a
public record. In other terms, there is no legitimate means for a person other than the
administrators of the respective courts or the system administrators, to obtain information as to
the level of hosting of data as well as to the functionalities of the hosting services. Yet again,
as already described, hosting services are arranged in terms of software and server logistics at
the level of respective courts and/or legal departments respectively in Ministry of Justice and
High Judicial Council. Some court infrastructure may unify several judicial instances, which
in practical terms would mean that a certain appellate court may have introduced an
interoperable system of data management and hosting for all court units within its jurisdiction,
i.e. the “subjugated” district and provincial courts under the jurisdiction of said appellate court.
To the best of present expert’s knowledge and belief, there is not centralized nationwide hosting
system for processing and storing of case related data of the judiciary.
As far as PEO’s data management is organized by each company who is the provider of the
respective office information system, such as described in in Chapter I, sec. 4.4., pg. 14-16
supra. It is usually a shared hosting between the PEO’s office and the respective provider.
Chapter IV: Access to information
1. Access to information for civil enforcement purposes. Domicile. Assets.
Domicile of physical persons such as permanent and current address as well as personal
information related to identity, next of kin and etc. is subject to registration in the National
Population Database. Status, parameters of incorporation, structure and domicile of legal
entities is subject to registration in the Commercial Register and the BULSTAT Register.
Information of debtor’s assets could be derived from a variety of official registers and
databases. The access is not systematically centralized, i.e. through certain unified portal or IT
platform, but rather based on separate arrangements between the Chamber and the institution
hosting the database. Enforcement officers hold prerogatives to access any available database
containing debtor’s information within the limitations of the purpose of the enforcement
procedure. The following descriptions refer only to databases which are accessed on-line via
electronic means.
1.1. National Population Database
45
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
The Ministry of Regional Development through the "Civil Registration and Administrative
Services" Directorate hosts the Population Register - National Population Database, which is
accessible online under specific statutory conditions for judicial authorities including PEOs.
Data related to enforcement cases includes:
1. Personal Identification Number (PIN) of the individual;
2. Name (first, middle and surname);
3. Gender;
4. Citizenship;
5. Place of birth;
6. Permanent/Current address;
7. Marital status;
8. Marriage certificate / divorce settlement;
9. Death data;
10. PIN-s, names, citizenship and indication of whether the following relatives are alive:
(A) Spouse;
(B) Mother/Father;
(C) Brothers / Sisters;
(D) Children.
The data is accessible through remote access by a secured channel using qualified electronic
signatures in compliance with the requirements of the Electronic Document and Electronic
Signature Act. The Ministry through said Directorate monitors the access to the National
Population Data, by periodical randomized samples of all inquiries by judicial authorities and
the enforcement officers. Within one month of receiving the sample, the judicial authority or
the enforcement officer is obliged to provide information on the merits of the access to the
register. In case of repeated violations, the Ministry may suspend the access of an authorised
user and notify the Commission for Personal Data Protection.
1.2. Commercial Register and Register of non-profit legal entities
The Commercial register is maintained by the Registry Agency within the structure of the
Ministry of Justice. The Register of non-profit legal entities is a separate system within the same
ministry. A separate file is kept in electronic form for each entity.
The case information in the Commercial Register includes, but is not limited to:
- Name and type of the entity; address of headquarters;
- Nature of main business activity;
- Owner/s (shareholders) of the entity;
- General partners;
- Management of the entity;
- Credentials and other relevant circumstances under the Commercial Act;
As of 01.01.2018, with the new Commercial register and The Register of non-profit legal
entities Act (Title Amend. – SG 74/16, in force from 01.01.2018), the Commercial Register and
the Register of the Non-profit legal entities is planned to be unified in a centralised electronic
database, managed by the Registry Agency, providing information of records subject to
disclosure, concerning commercial companies and branches thereof, as well as the non-profit
entities and their branches. The new integrated Agency is designed to ensure interoperability of
the presently functioning Commercial Register and the Register of Non-profit Entities within
46
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
the system of interconnection of the central, commercial and companies’ registers, commonly
referred to as the "Registers Interconnection System". The system is designed to provide free
information upon on-line request about the status, the liquidation proceedings of a company, a
foreign entity or a branch, insolvency proceedings or deletion from the Register.
1.3. Register of Bank Accounts and Safe Deposit Boxes hosted by the Bulgarian
National Bank
The Register of Bank Accounts and Safe Deposit Boxes, in operation since January 2017, is
regulated under Article 56а of the Law on Credit Institutions and Ordinance No. 12 of the
Bulgarian National Bank (BNB), and is maintained by the Bulgarian National Bank. It
consolidates data, reported by all banks and bank branches operating in Bulgaria on bank
accounts, the account holders, and the persons authorised to operate the accounts, as well as on
deposit box holders and their proxies.
The Register allows enforcement officers to derive information in which bank(s) the debtor
holds accounts and/or safe deposit boxes. Under the Credit Institutions Act, access to the he
Register is granted to judicial authorities and all law enforcement agencies or such with
prerogatives related to the national security, the National Revenue Agency as well as to the
judicial officers in relation to the specific statutory procedure at hand.
Compliance with the statutory requirements for submitting and receiving information from
the register is warranted by the National Bank administration. According to Instructions of the
BNB Deputy Governor dated February 14, 2017, the authorities with right to access must
formally apply, providing internal rules for authorized officers to be registered users, internal
measures for information storage and protection from unauthorized access. All authorized
applicants must enter the data for the BNB special inspection inquiries related to the use of the
database. For instance, to obtain information for a certain debtor, the PEO has to list it in the
special register, and to indicate the № of the enforcement case for which the inquiry is made.
1.4. Electronic attachment (arrest) of bank accounts
Electronic attachment of bank account receivables (see note 6 on pg. 15 supra) was
introduced by art. 450a (1) CPC in 2011. In 2013 the technical platform - Unified environment
for exchange of electronic distraints was created. Effective as of 1st of January, 2013, the
attachment on debtor's bank account is supposed to be imposed by the enforcement officer
through an attachment notification in electronic form, signed with a qualified electronic
signature, via the Unified environment for exchange of electronic distraints. As mentioned
above, the stipulation is dormant for the lack of joint regulation for a single standard on behalf
of the Justice Ministry and the National (Central) Bank. The attachment notice, the bank’s
answer, the notice of the lifting of the attachment, the confirmation of the message received and
other statements concerning the imposition, implementation and lifting of the seizure are to be
submitted and maintained in the system through a single standard approved by the Chairman of
the National Bank and the Minister of Justice. The implementation of electronic attachments
would reduce the cost. The operation is currently performed via a distraint order sent by mail
to the relevant bank. The lack of implementation of this effective mechanism is one of the sad
examples of a mismatch of priorities and bureaucratic glitches of the Bulgarian administration.
1.5. National Revenue Agency Database
47
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
Based on an agreement (signed July 11th, 2011), between the Chamber and NRA, the
Agency provides, at the request of the PEO, debtor’s information, which constitutes tax and
social security data (reported real estate, motor vehicles, registered employment contracts and
etc.) and/ or issues a certificate, according to Art. 191, para 1, and para 4 of the Taxation and
Social Security Procedure Code (TSSPC) attesting to any public dues of the debtor in relation
to the case filed with the bailiff. The information on declared real estate and vehicles is provided
according to the data received to the NRA from the municipalities. PEO’s request must be
related to a case file and is filed through the Electronic Services Portal of the NRA, using a
qualified electronic signature in compliance with the requirements of the Electronic Document
and Electronic Signature Act. The information is provided via PEOs e-mail service registered
with the NRA.
1.6. The Registry Agency
Registry Agency was established on July 31, 2004 with the adoption of §27 Law on
amendment and supplement the Law on Cadastre and Property Register (publ. SG 36 of April
30, 2004) and the Regulations of the Agency (SG 63 of July 20, 2004, effective July 31, 2004).
The institution merged in the 112 (presently 113 regional record offices) District Court Registry
Offices, responsible for processing and hosting the notarial records of real estate ownership and
transactions nationwide. Their officials handle all the acts, subject to registration and based on
them perform inquiries, issue certificates and make transcripts. In this way the publicity and
visibility of the entered entries are ensured, which guarantees security in real estate transactions.
The Registry Agency hosts and provides the management of the National Land Register.
Beginning as a major reform for the creating of a digitalized national cadastral map in 2006, a
single, centralized electronic system was developed and implemented under the “Cadastre and
Property Register” project. The system consists of digitalized maps of the national territory
based on specific statutory status of the type of land, such as urban territory, agricultural land,
mountain and forest terrain, protected territories and etc. The system contains data, regarding
the current ownership, easements (servitudes) and encumbrances, status (type), digital
parameters and etc. PEO’s access to the data, including the retrieval of plots of land is on line
through the Agency’s electronic portal via username and password. Although the system is yet
in process of development (some parts of the country are yet to be included in the digitalized
cadastre) the reform is a major step towards a digitalized and hence more accurate, time efficient
and cost effective management of plots of territory for the purpose of property records, real
estate transaction and all related litigation and enforcement implications.
1.7. BULSTAT Register
From August 11, 2005 the Agency took the management of another register - BULSTAT. It
includes all legal entities and branches of foreign persons who are not traders. Persons with
liberal professions as well as those engaged in craftsman activities are also eligible for
registration. The traders were obliged to register in BULSTAT, within 7 of commencement of
business, until January 1, 2008, after which this activity was taken over by the commercial
register.
1.8. The Register of Matrimonial Property Relations
48
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
The register consist of records related to prenuptial agreements and marital contracts
determining the status of the spouses’ property. It is a valuable source of information in all
cases where a joint marital property is subject to an enforcement procedure or the nature of a
certain property (involvement of a third person’s rights) needs to be investigated in that regard.
The Register is administrated by the Registry Agency. The data within is a public record,
inquiries can be made for the selected type of property relations. The register is centralized and
electronic. It contains data on the spouses, the number of the civil marriage act and the marital
property regime. In the event of changes in a civil marriage act, including its termination, a
notification is submitted to the relevant territorial unit of the Agency. The virtual access to the
registry system is personalized - each change is individualized and notes which of the authorised
users have made it. There is constant monitoring and control over the operation of the register.
This ensures the security of the civic records and the security of the data input. The information
system ensures transparency and quick and easy access to the entered data, regardless of the
location of users.
1.9. National Social Security Institute Database
The National Social Security Institute is a central administrative entity competent to collect
and process public funds and statutory withholdings related to national pension insurance and
health coverage. Hence the institute hosts and processes data related to the social security status
of natural persons, register of labour contracts and related withholdings due by employers, as
well as social security dues of self-employed individuals, pension entitlements. In practical
terms an enforcement officer may derive information from the database such as whether a
debtor derives an income from certain counterpart (the latter being and employer under a labour
contract or payments are based on a freelance relationship). Debtor’s information is not a public
record and is released to the PEO strictly within the powers of one’s office and related to a
particular case specified in the request. The access to the database is online via a formal request
on the NSSI official web site.
The e-application must show the number and the date of the enforcement case and lists
as follows:
I. for indebted natural persons - Personal Identification Number, respectively the quality
of self-insured persons and their BULSTAT number (if any);
II. For debtors having the capacity of legal entities – (Unified Identification Code) UIC,
as well as pertinent additional data depending on the case technical peculiarities.
Requests are submitted via an SSL secure connection. The PEO is identified in the NSSI
system through a universal electronic signature, in accordance to Electronic Document and
Electronic Signature Act. NSSI provides the requested information via the same SSL secure
connection. The access to the NSSI systems is via WEB Service and the data is received in
XML format.
2. Deficiencies related to access to information
2.1. Electronic access to state and municipal registers for the purposes of enforcement
proceedings
49
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
Although the Chamber succeeded to obtain remote access to the listed registers and
databases, this has been a result of decade-drawn tedious negotiations on “department by
department” and “agency by agency” basis. Therefore each access is based on different
technological means, which leads to all sorts of interoperability difficulties and glitches.
Meanwhile there is no complete electronic access to number of registers. The Chamber is
conducting negotiations with the Registry agency for remote access to scanned notary deeds
and the ability to levy an arrest on immovables electronically, which so far is fruitless. There
are ongoing negotiations with the Ministry of Interior since 2007 to request and receive
information of debtor’s registered motor vehicles, which have not brought any results yet. It
was not until 2011 that the Chamber signed an agreement for exchange of information with the
National Revenue Agency (NRA). The agreement has granted the functional access to data as
described above.
In order to optimize the enforcement proceedings, it is advisable for the state to engage more
actively in overcoming this problem. At present, the BCPEO is developing a project to build a
unified platform to ensure connectivity to all registers and automatic payment of state fees
through pre-loaded credits.
3. Cross border access to information
At present for Bulgarian judicial officers, there are no direct means of access to cross border
information of debtor’s assets.
Debtor’s assets information in registers which are not public record, i.e. accessible on a
general basis by any PC user (such as the Registry Agency Land register) is granted by the
respective authorities to Bulgarian judicial officer based on their professional capacity. In view
of the response to the question whether access to information about the debtor's assets is open
to foreign creditors/foreign enforcement organs would rather be negative based on the general
legislation. In terms of specialized legislation in the area of investigative activities related to
crime prevention, international tax evasion, or money laundering activities, present expert
refrains from speculation, since such prerogatives as well investigation instruments are usually
classified and unrelated to the subject of civil judicial enforcement.
To avoid redundancies, present expert suggests that subject of the state bodies which
administer databases relevant to enforcement be considered as part of the contents of Chapter
IV, sec. 1.1.-1.9., pg. 44-48 supra, as well as of the commentaries of the statutory state agency
control to PEO’s access to databases in Chapter I supra.
Chapter V: Other issues
Official language of judicial proceedings is Bulgarian. Unlike some jurisdictions in Western
Europe and Central Asia, the common tongue and the official language including the one used
for the purpose of legal process both written and spoken is Bulgarian. This principle is
warranted by respective stipulations in the principal procedural codes of procedure: Code of
Civil Procedure (art. 4), Criminal Procedure Code (art.21), and Administrative Procedure Code
(art. 14). In various term the codes state that the official language of proceedings is Bulgarian
and persons who do not understand or speak Bulgarian shall exercise their procedural rights
through a court appointed interpreter. Respective provisions are stipulated for the translation
of evidentiary documents and other related materials.
50
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
Present expert, in view of over 10 years of practical experience as an enforcement officer, is
not aware of a thematic national research or study exploring the trust of the profession or the
general population in dematerialised processes. The main reason for that is because with the
exception of certain logistical IT support on a departmental (or court) level, a dematerialised
processes of filing and reviewing civil action, gathering evidence and adjudicating claims is
virtually non-existent in Bulgaria. Therefore it is only logical to assume that if interviewed, not
just the general population (or the “laymen”) but the majority of the legal practitioners, would
hardly understand the substance of the question. That may certainly appear paradoxical in a
country as Bulgaria where computer and IT literacy among the young as well among the
middle-aged population is hardly lower than in any EU member state and the private sector is
relatively well computerized. The experience of the Bulgarian Camber of PEO and of the PEOs
themselves shows that where an efficient IT service is provided (e.g. debtor’s registry, public
auctions registry, remote access to e-file in PEO’s IT system and etc.) the customers are willing
to use such instruments promptly and efficiently. Aside from the topic of the report, there are
sectors of Bulgarian economy, such as banking and finance, where digitalization of services is
comparable to any developed industrialized country.
As a self-evident conclusion it should be stated, that the Bulgarian judicial system as well as
the political establishment as the decision maker in regard to national priorities is yet to find its
way into the IT reality of the 21st century.
Final Notice and Disclaimer
Certain topics of the Report have been substantially influenced by a very recent legislation,
to wit: “Law for amending and supplementing the Code of Civil Procedure” adopted by the
44th National Assembly on 18 October 2017. The law introduces amendments not only in the
CCP, but also in five other statutes such as the Private Enforcement Officers Act and the Tax
Procedure Code. The major body of the amending law enters into force on the 30th of October
2017, but the practical implementation of several major parts is subject to issuance of
implemental regulations with additional deadlines. For instance: the electronic arrest of
debtor’s bank accounts is deferred with 6 months until technical regulations by MJ is issued;
initiation of electronic auction procedure is “stayed” for 18 months for the same reason. In part
that legislation has been “in the making” in parliamentary committees for years and to the very
moment of voting – subject to heated debates. In view of present expert’s case load, a complete
integration of the new legislation in the Report was incompatible with meeting the deadline.
Therefore, updates to the Report where possible were made alongside the stipulations of the
same subject matter per then current legislation. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, most
of the new rules rather enrich the existing arrangements, than outright repeal them. For instance
an electronic auction is introduced, but the auction conducted in court (see sections 5.2., 5.3.,
pg. 28 infra) in the presence of the bidders has not been repealed as a (alternative) method of
selling debtor’s property. Another example is that service of extrajudicial documents by PEOs
has been introduced, but that did not affect PEO’s present prerogatives to serve procedural
papers. The other basic reason to preserve the structure and contents of the Report is a number
of precedents in Bulgaria (electronic arrest of bank accounts, centralised IT system of the
judicial enforcement, electronic filing and processing of documents as valid evidence in court
and etc.), where initiatives in the field of e-justice have been embodied in statutory rules and
yet stayed dormant for an extensive period time. It is expert’s sombre but empirically tested
51
Co-funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union
expectation that some of the new amendments would stay “on paper” for quite some time.
Therefore, and in view of the project’s approaching deadline, the contents and general structure
of Report has been preserved while relevant additions have been introduced to throw light on
the latest statutory developments.
Disclaimer: This publication has been produced with the financial support of the Justice Programme of the European
Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the Centre for European Constitutional Law –
Themistocles & Dimitris Tsatsos Foundation and its partners and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the
European Commission.