Bulgaria lawyers' fees 2026: mandatory minimums abolished

With State Gazette (Държавен вестник, ДВ) No. 14 of 18 February 2025, Ordinance No. 1 of 2004 changed its title from “minimum amounts of lawyers’ fees” to “remuneration for legal work” and removed the mandatory minimums. The change is a direct consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 25 January 2024 in case C-438/22 (Em akaunt BG). A year later the legislature built on the reform with ДВ No. 17 of 13 February 2026, amending the Bar Act (ЗА) and Art. 78(5) of the Civil Procedure Code (ГПК) as well. We analyse what this means for agreeing a fee, for fees set by the court or authorities, and for costs in 2026.

What changed: from “minimum amounts” to “remuneration for legal work”

The substance of the reform is conceptual. Until recently, Ordinance No. 1 set a lower limit for a lawyer’s fee, and agreeing a fee below it could in practice be penalised. The new wording abandons this approach and puts free negotiation between the lawyer and the client at the centre. The title of the act itself no longer contains the word “minimum”.

The key change of substance is in Art. 1. The amount of the remuneration is no longer set by a tariff but by free negotiation on the basis of a written contract with the client. This shifts the focus from a price set by regulation to the autonomy of the parties.

The CJEU judgment in case C-438/22 (Em akaunt) and Art. 101 TFEU

The reform is not the product of a domestic political initiative but of EU law. In its judgment of 25 January 2024 in case C-438/22, the CJEU ruled that a minimum tariff for lawyers’ fees adopted by a professional organisation of lawyers may amount to a restriction of competition “by object” within the meaning of Art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ДФЕС, TFEU).

The practical consequence is significant: the national court is not bound to award costs for a lawyer’s fee in an amount not lower than that set in the tariff of the professional organisation. Where such a tariff conflicts with Art. 101 TFEU, the court must leave the relevant national rules unapplied. This is what prompted the changes to Ordinance No. 1 and later to the ЗА and the ГПК.

The new role of the Ordinance: a criterion, not a minimum (Art. 36 and Art. 38 ЗА)

The Ordinance does not disappear, it changes its function. From a mandatory price list it becomes a set of criteria for determining remuneration in two situations: where there is no written contract, and where the remuneration is set by the court or authorities. This is laid down in Art. 2 of the ordinance itself.

The reform also received a statutory superstructure. ДВ No. 17 of 13 February 2026 amended Art. 36 ЗА: the amount of the remuneration is set in a contract and must be fair and reasoned, without being bound to a minimum under the tariff of the professional organisation. The criteria for setting it are in Art. 36(3), and the ordinance under Art. 36(4) is now issued by the Minister of Justice jointly with the Supreme Bar Council (ВАдС), not by the professional organisation alone. The same amendment also created a new Art. 36а on the special representative.

In the case of free legal aid (Art. 38(1) ЗА), the court awards the lawyer remuneration by applying the criteria in Art. 36(3) and (4) ЗА and orders the opposing party to pay it. In other words, even where the fee is set by the court, the starting point is now the criteria, not a fixed minimum.

The repeal of Art. 132, item 5 ЗА is the logical consequence of removing the minimum: agreeing a fee below a certain tariff can no longer be a ground for disciplinary liability, because such a lower limit no longer exists.

The tariff thresholds in Art. 7(2) as a guideline

The numerical thresholds for cases with a defined value at stake (интерес) remain in the text of the Ordinance, but their legal function is now different: they serve as a criterion for setting remuneration where the court or authorities do so, not as a mandatory lower limit. The structure is stepped, with a base amount up to a certain value at stake and a percentage for the portion above it.

ДВ No. 14 of 2025 also introduced a new § 1a in the Additional Provisions with legal definitions of the terms “interest” (value at stake) and “factual and legal complexity”. These definitions give an objective framework for applying the criteria when remuneration is set by the court or authorities.

Excessive costs under Art. 78(5) ГПК in practice

The topic most sensitive for practice is costs. Art. 78(5) ГПК governs the objection that a lawyer’s fee is excessive. ДВ No. 17 of 2026 brought the provision into line with the reform: where the objection is well founded, the court applies the criteria in Art. 36(3) ЗА and the rules in the ordinance under Art. 36(4), but cannot award a lower amount than that paid to the opposing party’s lawyer.

It is important that the version in force no longer contains a reference to the “minimum amount set”. The lower limit on reduction is no longer the tariff minimum but what was paid to the opposing party’s lawyer. The established trend in practice is for the courts to use the Ordinance as a guideline for assessing reasonableness, not as an absolute lower limit, which is consistent with the logic of C-438/22.

For historical context, it should be noted that Ordinance No. 1 has not been repealed in its entirety. By Decision No. 13062 of 3 October 2019 (administrative case No. 3586/2016) and Decision No. 5419 of 8 May 2020 (administrative case No. 14384/2019), the Supreme Administrative Court (ВАС) repealed specific provisions introduced by amendments of 2014 (published in ДВ No. 45 of 15 May 2020). The reform of 2025 and 2026 is a separate, deeper stage that affects the very nature of the act.

Practical guidance for lawyers and parties

Under the new rules the burden shifts to proving and justifying the fee. A lawyer who wants to defend the amount of their fee, or the award of costs, should justify the value at stake, the complexity and the work actually done, rather than simply relying on a tariff.

The second legislative stage came almost a year later: ДВ No. 17 of 13 February 2026 amended the Bar Act and the ГПК, so that the removal of the link to the minimum now rests on a statutory basis and not only on the ordinance. The two stages must be read together.