Court costs in Bulgaria: Interpretative Decision 6/2012
Analysis of ТР 6/2012 of the Supreme Court of Cassation on court costs: proving the lawyer's fee, method of payment, special representative, case law.
Interpretative Decision No. 6/2012 (ТР 6/2012) of the General Assembly of the Civil and Commercial Colleges (ОСГТК) of the Supreme Court of Cassation (ВКС) of 6 November 2013 is one of the most frequently cited decisions in Bulgarian civil and commercial proceedings. It gave binding answers to 24 disputed questions about court costs, from proving the lawyer’s fee to the fee of the special representative (особен представител, a person the court appoints for a defendant who cannot be found). More than ten years later, the case law on how it is applied still raises questions.
With the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (СЕС) in case C-438/22 of 25 January 2024 and the changes to Ordinance No. 1/2004 (State Gazette (ДВ) issue 14 of 18 February 2025) this topic has entered a new stage. This analysis looks at the key positions of ТР 6/2012, the conflicting case law and the current challenges for practising lawyers.
❓What does ТР 6/2012 of the ОСГТК of the ВКС rule on court costs?
Source: ТР 6/2012, ОСГТК of the ВКС
The legal framework: Art. 78 ГПК and related provisions
Court costs are regulated by Art. 78 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ГПК). The provision has eight paragraphs, which regulate the winning party’s right to costs, the apportionment where a claim is partly upheld, and the conditions for a reduction because of excessiveness. These rules apply in all instances of civil and commercial proceedings.
Code of Civil Procedure (ГПК)
Art. 78(1)
Official Bulgarian text
„Заплатените от ищеца такси, разноски по производството и възнаграждение за един адвокат, ако е имал такъв, се заплащат от ответника съразмерно с уважената част от иска.“
Alongside the ГПК, the legal framework for the lawyer’s fee is supplemented by the Bar Act (ЗАдв), in particular Art. 36(1), which establishes the principle of free negotiation, and Art. 38(2), which regulates free legal aid. Until February 2025, Ordinance No. 1/2004 set the minimum amounts of lawyers’ fees, which served as a lower limit when assessing excessiveness under Art. 78(5) ГПК.
Bar Act (ЗАдв)
Art. 36(1)
Official Bulgarian text
„Размерът на възнаграждението за оказваната от адвоката правна помощ се определя по свободно договаряне въз основа на писмен договор с клиента.“
ТР 6/2012 ОСГТК: overview of the 24 questions
The interpretative decision was adopted on the basis of Art. 124(1) of the Judiciary Act (ЗСВ) because of conflicting and incorrect case law of the courts on questions related to costs. Under Art. 130(2) ЗСВ, interpretative decisions are binding on the judicial and executive authorities, including all courts in the country.
The twenty-four questions can be classified into several thematic groups.
| Thematic group | Questions (items) | Subject |
|---|---|---|
| Lawyer’s fee | items 1, 2, 3 | Proof of payment, the contract as a receipt, objection of excessiveness |
| Special representative | items 6, 7, 8 | State fee, amount of the fee under Art. 47(6) ГПК |
| Apportionment of costs | items 9, 10, 11, 12 | Proportionality, partial upholding, counterclaims |
| Enforcement proceedings | items 13-18 | Costs in order-for-payment and enforcement proceedings |
| Procedural questions | items 19-24 | Amendment of costs under Art. 248 ГПК, interim measures, recusal |
24
Disputed questions resolved by ТР 6/2012, the most comprehensive interpretative decision on costs in Bulgarian procedural practice
Proving the lawyer’s fee: cash vs. bank transfer
One of the central questions resolved by ТР 6/2012 concerns the conditions for awarding costs for a lawyer’s fee. Under item 1, the costs for a lawyer’s fee are awarded when the party presents a contract for legal assistance and representation that serves as a receipt for the payment made. The contract must certify that the fee was agreed and paid.
The conflicting case law arises around the method of payment. Two opposing positions of panels of the ВКС illustrate the problem.
| Position | Ruling | Thesis |
|---|---|---|
| Strict | Ruling No. 307 of 13 November 2013, II commercial division (II т.о.), commercial case No. 802/2012 | The declaration “agreed, paid and received” („уговорено, платено и получено“) is insufficient without a stated method of payment: costs are not awarded |
| Liberal | Ruling No. 91 of 19 March 2014, IV civil division (IV г.о.), civil case No. 6398/2013 | The receipt in the contract proves the payment; it makes no difference to its evidential force whether the method of payment is stated |
Caution
Documenting a lawyer’s fee correctly
Conclude a written contract
Note the method of payment
Collect a payment document
Present it to the court
Conclude a written contract
Note the method of payment
Collect a payment document
Present it to the court
Ask Pravko and get an answer with citations from the law.
Excessive lawyer’s fee (Art. 78(5) ГПК)
The opposing party’s right to object that the fee is excessive is regulated in Art. 78(5) ГПК. Under ТР 6/2012 (item 3), the objection is admissible until the close of oral argument in the relevant instance. The court assesses whether the lawyer’s fee paid is proportionate to the actual factual and legal complexity of the case.
Code of Civil Procedure (ГПК)
Art. 78(5)
Official Bulgarian text
„Ако заплатеното от страната възнаграждение за адвокат е прекомерно съобразно действителната правна и фактическа сложност на делото, съдът може по искане на насрещната страна да присъди по-нисък размер на разноските в тази им част.“
Until February 2025 the criterion of excessiveness was tied to the minimum amounts under Ordinance No. 1/2004: the court could not go below the minimum. After the changes of State Gazette (ДВ) issue 14 of 18 February 2025, all the minimum amounts were removed. The ordinance was renamed the “Ordinance on determining the fees for lawyers’ work” („Наредба за определяне на възнагражденията за адвокатска работа“) and now contains only indicative criteria: the amount at stake, factual and legal complexity, and the lawyer’s qualifications, experience and specialisation.
Important
Special representative: fee and state fee
The special representative under Art. 47(6) ГПК is appointed by the court when the defendant cannot be found at the stated address and has not been found on inquiry. ТР 6/2012 (item 6) rules that the special representative does not owe a state fee, and their fee is determined by the court according to the factual and legal complexity of the case.
Code of Civil Procedure (ГПК)
Art. 47(6)
Official Bulgarian text
„Когато ответникът не се яви, не изпрати представител и не е подал отговор на исковата молба, съдът му назначава особен представител. Възнаграждението на особения представител се определя от съда съобразно фактическата и правна сложност на делото.“
The practical consequences for the claimant are significant: the cost of the special representative’s fee is advanced by the claimant, but if the claim is upheld it can be recovered from the defendant as part of the costs awarded.
CJEU judgment C-438/22 and the changes to Ordinance No. 1/2004
On 25 January 2024 the Court of Justice of the European Union gave judgment in case C-438/22, brought by a request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofia District Court. The judgment characterised the setting of minimum lawyers’ fees by the Supreme Bar Council as a horizontal fixing of mandatory minimum tariffs, prohibited by Art. 101, paragraph 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (ДФЕС).
CJEU judgment in case C-438/22
Operative part
Official Bulgarian text
„Определянето на минимални размери на адвокатските възнаграждения и установяването им като задължителни е равнозначно на хоризонтално определяне на задължителни минимални тарифи, забранено от чл. 101, параграф 1 ДФЕС.“
The consequences of the CJEU judgment were not long in coming. By State Gazette (ДВ) issue 14 of 18 February 2025 the Supreme Bar Council amended Ordinance No. 1/2004, removing all the minimum amounts. The ordinance was renamed the “Ordinance on determining the fees for lawyers’ work” („Наредба за определяне на възнагражденията за адвокатска работа“) and now contains only criteria for determining a fair fee, with no mandatory lower limit.
10+ years
The period during which minimum lawyers’ fees applied (2004-2025), removed after the CJEU judgment
Current case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation (2023-2026)
After the adoption of ТР 6/2012, the Supreme Court of Cassation (ВКС) continued to develop its case law on questions of costs. Two key developments deserve attention.
ТР 3/2023 ОСГК of 27 June 2024 deals with a specific question: the applicability of Art. 78 ГПК in contentious judicial administration proceedings under the Family Code (parental rights, personal contact, maintenance). The decision clarifies when and how costs are awarded in these special proceedings, which are not a classic civil action.
It is important to distinguish it from the separate ТР 3/2023 ОСГТК of 21 November 2024, which treats other questions. The two interpretative decisions come from different colleges and concern different issues.
| ТР | College | Date | Main question |
|---|---|---|---|
| ТР 6/2012 | ОСГТК | 6 November 2013 | 24 questions on costs: lawyer’s fee, special representative, apportionment |
| ТР 3/2023 ОСГК | ОСГК | 27 June 2024 | Costs in contentious judicial administration proceedings under the Family Code (СК) (parental rights, maintenance) |
| Judgment C-438/22 | CJEU (СЕС) | 25 January 2024 | Minimum lawyers’ fees: a breach of competition under Art. 101(1) ДФЕС |
The trend in the case law since 2024 is towards stronger reasoning when the amount of costs is determined. The courts increasingly avoid relying mechanically on Ordinance No. 1 and instead make a specific assessment of the actual complexity of the case. Amendment of costs under Art. 248 ГПК remains the main procedural means of correction.
Free legal aid and costs (Art. 38(2) ЗАдв)
A specific question connected with costs is the situation under Art. 38(2) ЗАдв. When a lawyer provides free legal aid to certain categories of people (for example those in financial hardship), and the case is won, the lawyer is entitled to a fee out of the costs awarded in favour of the represented party. The amount is determined by the court.
Bar Act (ЗАдв)
Art. 38(2)
Official Bulgarian text
„Когато в полза на лицето бъде присъдена сума за разноски, адвокатът има право на възнаграждение до размера на присъдените разноски.“
Information
Practical advice for lawyers
Documenting and claiming costs correctly is critical to having them awarded. The following checklist summarises the key steps arising from ТР 6/2012 and the case law that followed.
Checklist: claiming costs for a lawyer’s fee
Conclude a written contract for legal assistance stating the amount of the fee*
State the method of payment expressly: “in cash” („в брой“) or “by bank transfer” („по банков път“)*
For a cash payment, the contract serves as the receipt (under item 1 of ТР 6/2012)*
For a bank transfer, keep the payment order or the bank statement*
Prepare the list of costs under Art. 80 ГПК before the last hearing*
Attach all the documents (contract, receipt/payment document) to the list*
Justify the amount of the fee with specific arguments about factual and legal complexity (especially after the repeal of the minimums)
Watch for an objection of excessiveness from the opposing party: it is admissible until oral argument
* Mandatory documents
Procedure under Art. 248 ГПК: amending the judgment as to costs
File an application
Serve it on the opposing party
Ruling
File an application
Serve it on the opposing party
Ruling
Typical mistakes that lead to a refusal to award costs
The case law since ТР 6/2012 reveals several recurring mistakes that lead the court to refuse to award costs for a lawyer’s fee. Knowing them is essential for every practising lawyer.
| Mistake | Consequence | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| No written contract for legal assistance | Costs are not awarded: the contract is mandatory under item 1 of the ТР | Always conclude a written contract, even with long-standing clients |
| Method of payment not stated | Risk of refusal (the strict position of the II commercial division) | Write “in cash” („в брой“) or “by bank transfer” („по банков път“) in the contract itself |
| No list under Art. 80 ГПК submitted | Loss of the right to costs | Prepare the list before the last hearing |
| Late objection of excessiveness | The court does not consider the objection | The objection is admissible until the close of oral argument (item 3 of the ТР) |
Pravko provides legal information but does not replace consulting a lawyer. For important legal questions about claiming costs in a specific proceeding, consult a licensed lawyer.
See also: Supreme Court of Cassation interpretative cases 2026: a full overview by college and Power of attorney: types, cost and template for 2026.
⚠️ Important
Pravko provides legal information, but it does not replace advice from a lawyer. For important legal matters, consult a licensed lawyer.
