Theft in Bulgaria, Art. 194 Criminal Code: legal analysis

Theft under Art. 194(1) of the Criminal Code (НК) is the property offence most often heard in Bulgarian criminal practice, but for that very reason disputes about it rarely turn on the basic text itself. It has stood unchanged since State Gazette (ДВ) issue 10 of 1993, while the framework around it moves: Art. 195(1), item 11 НК was amended by State Gazette issue 61 of 2025, in force from 31 January 2026, and the НК is in the wording as amended by State Gazette issue 55 of 16 June 2026.

This analysis starts from the offence and goes through the four questions that in practice decide the case: is the act completed, is the case a minor one, does the aggravating circumstance hold up, and is there still a crime at all. It sets out in detail the reasoning of two acts of the Supreme Court of Cassation (ВКС) given in reopening proceedings, which are almost absent from the freely available content on the topic.

Legal framework: Art. 194(1) to (3) НК

Theft is placed systematically in Chapter Five, Section I of the Special Part of the НК. The basic offence has four objective elements: taking, another’s movable thing, possession by someone else and lack of consent. To these the law adds a special purpose, which forms part of the subjective side and distinguishes theft from a number of neighbouring offences.

Para. 2 has independent practical significance in cases of co-ownership and property relations between spouses: the fact that part of the thing belongs to the offender does not exclude the offence. The sanction ranges in the НК in the wording in force are expressed in leva, not in euro, and should be cited as they appear in the law.

The moment of completion: when theft is only an attempt

The distinction between completed theft and attempt is the first question the defence should raise, and at the same time the one most often overlooked. The criterion is not whether the thing has been removed from its place but whether the offender has established their own actual control over it.

In Judgment No. 487 of 24 February 2012 in criminal case No. 2341/2011 of the ВКС, Third Criminal Division the panel holds that classifying the act as a completed offence is unlawful, because at the time of the arrest the offender had not yet established his actual control over the property taken. The sheet metal had been dismantled and prepared for carrying away, but the act was discovered before the convicted person had taken possession of it as his own. The court reclassified the act as an attempt under Art. 18(1) НК.

The same act also contains two directions on the individualisation of the sentence that are used less often than they deserve. The first is that the way in which the defendant exercises the rights given to him by law, including the right of defence, cannot be counted as an aggravating circumstance. The second arises from Art. 56 НК.

The subjective side: the intention to appropriate unlawfully

Theft is committed with direct intent combined with a special purpose. The offender must be aware that the thing is another’s and that he is taking possession without consent, and must pursue appropriation, that is, establishing lasting actual control of the kind the owner has.

The practical significance is most tangible in the temporary use of another’s thing and in taking carried out to settle a disputed right by force. In both situations the examination of the purpose, not of the act, determines the classification. The distinction from fraud under Art. 209 НК runs along a different line: in theft possession is taken, whereas in fraud it is handed over voluntarily by a deceived victim.

A minor case under Art. 194(3) in connection with Art. 93, item 9 НК

Minor character is not a separate discretionary assessment by the court but the application of a legal definition. It is contained in the General Part of the НК and sets two alternative reference points: the absence or insignificance of harmful consequences, or the presence of other mitigating circumstances.

The value of the object is not the only criterion. In Judgment No. 102 of 13 March 2014 in criminal case No. 2093/2013 of the ВКС, Second Criminal Division the panel weighs everything together: a value of BGN 60, return of the thing before pre-trial proceedings were opened, a banal manner of commission, a single second-hand item, a confession that led to the discovery of the act, rehabilitation by operation of law for the previous conviction and lack of employment. The conclusion is a markedly lower degree of public danger within the meaning of Art. 93, item 9 НК.

Three institutions are often confused in the defence, although they lead to different consequences. The table below distinguishes them.

Aggravating circumstances and their limits

Art. 195(1) НК contains twelve aggravating circumstances. Practical disputes concentrate on two of them, and a third has been amended very recently.

The interpretation of the concept of technical means is derived from Decree No. 6 of 26 April 1971 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court (ППВС) in criminal case No. 3/71, Section II, item 11: the aggravation applies when the offender used a forged key or a key not intended for unlocking the particular premises. In Judgment No. 102/2014 the ВКС refuses to apply item 4, because the key used had been found hanging on the inner side of the gate and was intended precisely for unlocking it. Such a key is neither a technical means nor a special manner of commission.

From this follows the conclusion on which the whole of Judgment No. 102/2014 rests. Classifying the offence as a minor case logically leads to the falling away of the aggravating circumstance under Art. 195(1), item 7 НК. At the same time the court holds that the act is not insignificant under Art. 9(2) НК, that is, the offence remains but loses its aggravating feature.

Repeat offending itself is regulated in the General Part, and the conditions for its falling away are in a separate provision that is overlooked in practice.

Separately, item 11 of Art. 195(1) НК should be followed, which was amended by State Gazette issue 61 of 2025, in force from 31 January 2026. The referring provision and the provisions it refers to enter into force together, which means that the aggravation applies only to acts committed after that date.

Art. 218б НК: when theft stops being a crime

Art. 218б НК provides an administrative exit from criminal liability for certain low-value property acts. The provision applies only where the positive conditions of para. 1 are cumulatively met and none of the negative conditions of para. 2 is present.

The sanction consequences differ substantially depending on how far the classification goes. The values below are in leva, as expressed in the law in the wording in force.

The procedural consequence where the conditions of Art. 218б НК are present is acquittal. In Judgment No. 102/2014 the ВКС sets aside the sentence and acquits the convicted person under Art. 425(1), item 2, second alternative, in conjunction with Art. 24(1), item 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (НПК), within the factual findings of the sentence that had entered into force.

The status of the interpretative case law on theft

The main interpretative act on theft remains ППВС No. 6 of 26 April 1971 in criminal case No. 3/71 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. It is often misstated: there are claims that the decree has been repealed in full. This is not so.

The operative part of Interpretative Decision No. 1 of 24 January 2022 in interpretative case No. 1/2018 of the ОСНК of the ВКС declares a list of interpretative acts no longer in force, and under No. 16 it names Section III of the decree. Section II remains in force, and with it the two items that bear directly on theft: item 7 on the minor case and item 11 on technical means. It is on these that Judgment No. 102/2014 relies.

The distinction between kinds of case law has direct procedural significance. Interpretative decisions of the ОСНК are binding on the judicial and executive authorities. Decisions in specific cases, including those in reopening proceedings, bind only the parties to the case and serve as an argument, not as a basis.

Distinctions: embezzlement, returning the thing, the family circle

The most common exercise in distinguishing property offences is between theft and embezzlement (обсебване). The decisive criterion is the offender’s factual position in relation to the thing before the act.

Returning the thing has independent significance outside Art. 218б НК as well. The mitigating regime under Art. 197 НК applies to a wider range of situations and is tied to a procedural moment.

The last often-overlooked situation is the procedural bar for acts within the family circle. Where the stated relationships exist, public-prosecution criminal proceedings are inadmissible without a complaint from the victim.

Practical conclusions for the defence

The order of examination is not a formality. Each next step makes sense only if the previous one gave a negative result, and the reverse order leads to accepting classifications that do not hold up.

For the practising defence lawyer, the main value of the two acts examined is that they show how one and the same set of facts moves through four successive reductions: from aggravated theft to the basic offence, from the basic offence to a minor case, from a minor case to an administrative violation, and, where the act is incomplete, from a completed act to an attempt. Each of these movements has its own legal basis and its own burden of proof. A similar logic of layered examination applies to other offences in the Special Part, including Art. 313 НК.

Pravko provides legal information but does not replace advice from a lawyer. For important legal matters, consult a licensed lawyer.