A foreign judgment is useful only if the correct Bulgarian enforcement route and reachable assets are identified. ARG assists creditors and debtors with the applicable instrument, required documents and permitted objections.
A creditor may have won a case abroad and still face an unpaid debt when the debtor’s bank account or property is in Bulgaria. Clients ask ARG whether they must start another lawsuit, what certificate the foreign court must issue and whether a Bulgarian court can reconsider the original dispute.
ARG can arrange assistance through authorised Bulgarian lawyers in the following situations.
The state of origin, subject matter and date proceedings began determine whether EU rules, a treaty or Bulgarian private international law applies.
Recognition, enforceability and actual recovery are different stages. A simplified route does not establish that the debtor has available assets.
A complete judgment, the appropriate certificate, service evidence and any required translations must reflect the current status of the decision.
Refusal grounds are limited by the applicable instrument. Asset ownership, competing rights and payments also shape any practical enforcement plan.
The first distinction is between a judgment’s legal effect and a request to seize assets. A creditor may rely on a recognised decision to establish an issue already determined, without asking an enforcement officer to sell property. Compulsory enforcement additionally requires an enforceable obligation and the documents prescribed by the governing instrument. A statement in the reasoning that the debtor behaved improperly is not itself an order to pay an additional sum. The operative part, later corrections and any conditions determine what can actually be demanded.
Recognition and enforcement also involve different attributes of the decision. A qualifying Member State judgment is recognised without a special procedure under Article 36 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Enforcement under Article 39 additionally depends on enforceability in the state of origin. The creditor should therefore obtain current information about that status rather than equating the existence of a signed judgment with an immediate right to execution. A foreign appeal, suspension or limitation in the order may affect the practical route even where the decision remains legally significant.
The governing instrument is selected by examining the country of origin, the subject matter, the nature of the decision and the relevant dates. The language of the judgment or the creditor's nationality does not answer those questions. A commercial payment order, a divorce judgment, an arbitral award and an insolvency decision can all involve the same parties and assets while falling under different recognition regimes. Treating them as interchangeable risks requesting the wrong certificate, applying to the wrong authority or overlooking a defence expressly available under the applicable instrument.
Where the European instrument is inapplicable, the Code of Private International Law (Кодекс на международното частно право, КМЧП) supplies a general framework subject to applicable treaties and special rules under Article 3. The comparable starting question in England and Wales is also which recognition regime governs the particular foreign decision. The domestic Bulgarian requirements are not applied merely because the creditor lives outside the European Union. A judgment's state of origin and subject matter must be classified independently of the party's citizenship. A non-European claimant can hold a judgment falling within the European circulation regime.
The regulation's limits remain important. Its Article 1 excludes matters including arbitration, insolvency, succession and specified family matters. An order issued by an ordinary civil court can nevertheless concern an excluded subject. Conversely, the label used by the foreign court does not alone settle the classification. The operative obligation and the legal relationship that produced it must be examined. Where a judgment contains several distinct rulings, the route for a money award may differ from the route for a family status determination. An application should identify precisely which part is being invoked.
The Bulgarian procedural mechanism is contained in the Civil Procedure Code (Граждански процесуален кодекс, ГПК). England and Wales likewise distinguishes the registration or recognition gateway from execution through the procedures associated with Civil Procedure Rules Part 74, although the available regimes differ. For qualifying recast judgments, Article 622a(1) and (2) ГПК permits direct execution without a Bulgarian writ, using the court-certified judgment and Article 53 certificate. This removes a preliminary declaration stage. It does not enlarge the obligation, substitute the applicant for a different judgment creditor or make a non-liable affiliate answer for the judgment debtor.
Time is another substantive condition. The recast regime generally applies to proceedings instituted on or after 10 January 2015 under Article 66(1). The date the decision was signed is not a substitute for the date proceedings began. Earlier proceedings can remain subject to the predecessor instrument under Article 66(2). A creditor who supplies only the final judgment may therefore omit the document needed to choose the applicable process. The initiating claim, its filing information and any relevant transitional facts can be as important as the judgment itself.
The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention illustrates why a current treaty check matters. It entered into force for Bulgaria through the European Union on 1 September 2023 and for the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025. Its Article 16 looks to whether the convention had effect between the relevant states when the original proceedings were instituted. A recent English judgment in an old case does not become eligible merely because the judgment postdates British entry. The convention also contains subject exclusions, recognition bases and declarations, so membership is only one part of the analysis.
For a recast judgment, the debtor seeking refusal of enforcement relies on Articles 45 and 46 of the regulation. The grounds include a manifest conflict with public policy, certain defects in service in default proceedings, irreconcilable judgments and specified jurisdictional protections. The list is not an invitation to challenge any aspect of the foreign litigation. In particular, Article 45(3) generally excludes review of the originating court's jurisdiction outside the stated exceptions and prevents using public policy to conduct that prohibited review. The fact that the debtor would have preferred litigation in Bulgaria is insufficient by itself.
The national framework asks a different, specifically structured set of questions. The court examines the originating authority's jurisdiction as recognised by Bulgarian law, service and fundamental defence rights, incompatible Bulgarian adjudication, earlier pending Bulgarian proceedings and public policy under Article 117 of КМЧП. A creditor invoking this route must establish the requisite foundation even if the debtor presents an unsophisticated defence. The court checks the conditions of its own motion under Article 120(1). However, Article 120(2) prevents reliance on certain defence-related violations that the defendant could have raised before the foreign court. Participation and the available procedural opportunities therefore remain material.
For the general КМЧП claim, the originating court's certified judgment and certificate of finality are required by Article 119(2). The distinction between that finality certificate and the European enforceability certificate is consequential. They answer different questions under different instruments. In Decision No 60044 of 16 September 2021, commercial case No 2775/2019, First Commercial Division, the Supreme Court of Cassation examined a Serbian judgment and explained the evidentiary function of certification by the court of origin. A Bulgarian recognition court does not become an appellate authority deciding anew whether foreign procedural rules made the judgment final.
The same decision identifies meaningful limits to reliance on a certificate. Its authenticity and formal requisites can be challenged, and evidence that an appellate procedure has revised the relevant position may undermine the asserted status. The practical response to a suspicious certificate is therefore to identify the concrete defect and obtain authoritative information from the originating proceedings. Simply denying finality because the result is unwelcome addresses the wrong issue. Conversely, a creditor cannot replace the required court certification with a private lawyer's assertion that the time for appeal probably expired.
A European instrument can remove a separate declaration or writ stage, but it does not create a new claim against a different debtor. The practical gain is procedural. The judgment and prescribed certificate travel together, while Bulgarian enforcement methods realise the obligation against assets. An ordinary national writ is issued within a different procedural route and is not a document that every creditor must obtain simply because the assets are Bulgarian. Requesting an unnecessary writ can waste time; omitting a required certificate can leave a direct enforcement request incomplete.
The form of the foreign act also matters. A court settlement within the recast framework follows Article 59 and the rules for authentic instruments, with the certificate contemplated by Article 60. It is not automatically documented through the certificate used for a judgment under Article 53. Judicial settlements fall within the general recognition provisions if the state where they were concluded assimilates them to judgments, as required by Article 122 of КМЧП. An ordinary private settlement is a different object. The fact that parties signed an agreement after litigation began does not alone show that the court approved it or that it has the necessary enforceable status.
Tell us where you live, how your business works and what you want to change. We will help you identify the questions to resolve and the next steps to consider.
Public policy is a narrow safeguard. In its judgment of 16 July 2015 in Case C-681/13, Diageo Brands BV v Simiramida-04 EOOD, the Court of Justice considered the predecessor Regulation No 44/2001 and explained in paragraphs 64 and 68 that an ordinary legal error does not itself justify refusal. The relevant concern is a manifest breach of an essential rule or fundamental right, with account taken of available remedies in the state of origin and exceptional difficulty in using them. The judgment does not permit a Bulgarian enforcement dispute to become a general appeal against an unfavourable foreign outcome.
The applicable instrument determines the next document. For a judgment within Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Article 42(1) requires an authentic copy and the certificate under Article 53. The certificate is issued by the court of origin on request and follows the prescribed form. It records relevant enforceability information, including the award and, where appropriate, costs and interest. A creditor should compare it with the operative order before submission. A transcription error is better addressed at its source than defended after an enforcement officer acts on it.
The Bulgarian route is implemented through the Civil Procedure Code (Граждански процесуален кодекс, ГПК). A restrained comparison is the documentary registration procedure for foreign judgments in England and Wales under Civil Procedure Rules Part 74, although the Bulgarian direct European route has its own conditions. The enforcement officer receives the court-certified judgment copy and Article 53 certificate with the interested party's request under Article 622a(2) of ГПК. The absence of a requirement for a Bulgarian writ under Article 622a(1) saves a separate procedural stage. It does not excuse a missing certificate or proof that the applicant is entitled to invoke the judgment.
Translation requirements should be addressed with precision. The certificate and the judgment are subject to different translation requirements in Article 42(3) and (4) of the regulation. Translation of the certificate may be necessary, while translation of the judgment may be required where the competent authority cannot proceed without it. The debtor's translation protection under Article 43 presents a further, distinct question. The recipient's relevant language circumstances and the documents already served should be recorded. Ordering a translation of every historic exhibit without assessing its purpose can be wasteful, but failing to translate a document necessary to protect defence rights can obstruct lawful execution.
Authentication is also route-specific. Documents issued within the recast framework are exempt from legalisation and similar formalities under Article 61. Outside that framework, the Code of Private International Law (Кодекс на международното частно право, КМЧП) requires the originating court's certified judgment and certificate of finality under Article 119(2), subject to applicable treaty rules. England and Wales similarly requires identification of the relevant statutory or treaty gateway before determining the documents needed for registration. In Bulgaria, an applicable apostille or authentication treaty must therefore be considered before assuming that every national-code file requires an identical chain of certifications.
An application for refusal of enforcement goes to the competent provincial court at the debtor’s permanent address, registered office or place of enforcement under Article 622b read with Article 623(1) of ГПК. It is not enough to tell the creditor that the judgment is disputed. The objection should identify a ground under Articles 45 and 46 of Regulation No 1215/2012 and connect that ground with evidence. If the real complaint is that a protected asset has been targeted or a payment ignored, the appropriate execution remedy must be distinguished from refusal of the judgment's recognition. Filing one type of complaint does not necessarily preserve every other procedural right.
The one-month refusal period begins when the enforcement officer serves the Article 53 certificate with the invitation for voluntary compliance under Article 622a(5) and (6) of ГПК. A copy of the judgment accompanies it if the judgment has not already been served. Where a translation of the judgment is necessary, the period is suspended until it is supplied. The date and contents of service must therefore be established rather than guessed from when a bank first blocked an account. A complaint to the creditor or an informal objection to a translator is not equivalent to the required judicial application.
An appeal and a suspension are not interchangeable. Suspension of enforceability in the state of origin requires suspension in the requested state on the debtor’s application under Article 44(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012. A mere notice that an appeal has been filed does not necessarily establish that condition. Where refusal is sought, Article 44(1) allows the requested court to consider protective-only execution, security or suspension on application. The requested relief should be stated expressly and supported by the foreign order, the procedural status and the practical risk. An objection to recognition alone should not be assumed to stop all activity.
Protective measures can preserve the value of a claim while a dispute about enforcement is resolved. An enforceable judgment carries authority for protective measures under Article 40 of the regulation, but the procedure and safeguards still matter. For enforcement of a provisional measure itself, Article 42(2) requires the relevant certification, including the originating court's jurisdiction over the substance, and proof of service where the measure was ordered without the defendant being summoned. These requirements explain why a creditor should provide the actual order and procedural history. A broad assertion that funds may disappear cannot replace the documents required by the chosen route.
The creditor should identify assets belonging to the person bound by the judgment before committing to expensive measures. A company may occupy premises without owning them, operate through a subsidiary with a separate legal personality or use equipment supplied under another arrangement. The judgment does not itself resolve those ownership questions. Official records and the actual contractual structure help distinguish a promising enforcement target from property held by a third party. The assessment should also consider existing security and competing claims, because gross asset value can be very different from the amount potentially available to an unsecured creditor.
Recovery also requires commercial judgment. A valuable building may already secure a larger senior debt, while a smaller receivable may offer a more realistic source of payment. These are reasons to assess available assets and likely net recovery before incurring avoidable execution costs. Any instalment arrangement should explain the remaining principal, treatment of interest and expenses, payment dates and effect on pending measures. The file should record each receipt so that the enforcement request reflects the current balance. A legally successful recognition process and an economically useful recovery are related outcomes, but neither should be assumed from the other.
A default judgment demands a detailed account of the original notification process. The initiating document must have reached the defendant in sufficient time and in a manner enabling a defence, subject to the qualification concerning an available challenge that was not pursued, under Article 45(1)(b). Evidence can include the claim's contents, postal records, the address used, proof of when the defendant learned of the proceedings and correspondence with the foreign court. The argument should explain the lost opportunity. Saying that the defendant did not personally attend the hearing leaves unanswered whether there was a fair chance to participate.
The creditor's response should also be specific. A delivery receipt may show that papers reached a building without establishing that the correct initiating document was delivered to the relevant person. On the other hand, a filed defence, appointment of counsel or substantive participation may contradict an assertion of complete ignorance. The chronology should include each relevant notification and appearance. The Bulgarian court needs the procedural facts that engage the recognition safeguard, not a new bundle of evidence about whether the original goods were defective or the original invoice was commercially justified.
The route decides the competent authority. For a qualifying recast civil or commercial judgment, the interested party applies to a Bulgarian enforcement officer with the documents required by Article 622a of ГПК. A refusal application is a judicial matter under Article 622b, rather than an invitation for the enforcement officer to retry the original dispute. In the general national route, contested recognition and authorisation of enforcement are addressed through Sofia City Court under Articles 118 and 119 of КМЧП. The procedural request must therefore say whether the party wants recognition, execution, refusal, suspension or a challenge to a particular enforcement act.
For direct European execution, Bulgarian procedures apply subject to the regulation under Article 41 of Regulation No 1215/2012. The foreign judgment does not authorise a private creditor to seize property personally or demand payment from a bank outside the proper process. The enforcement officer implements the legally available measures. Requests should identify the obligation, the desired method and the information supporting it. A creditor who already knows of a payment or a foreign suspension must account for that development. Accuracy in the execution request protects the legitimacy of the recovery effort and reduces avoidable disputes about excess.
Payment records should connect the transfer with the actual adjudicated debt. If the parties have several contracts, a bank reference identifying only their names may not establish which obligation was paid. Interest, awarded costs and principal must be distinguished, and an assignment or succession affecting the claimant must be evidenced. The enforcement officer should be informed of direct payments so that collection does not continue on an outdated balance. A settlement should also specify which existing measures will remain until instalments are paid, rather than promising that a payment schedule automatically removes them.
Treaty files may require additional material. A default judgment requires evidence that the initiating document was notified to the defaulting party, alongside the certified judgment and proof of effect or enforceability, under Article 12 of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. Eligibility also depends on the convention's scope, recognition bases and the commencement condition in Article 16. The date proceedings were instituted should therefore be supported by court records. A current membership list alone cannot prove that a particular older case falls within the convention. The completed file should demonstrate the chosen route rather than merely contain a large volume of translated paper.
Compare the related procedures in this category, including their requirements and the stage at which you need them.
.svg)
.svg)
