Bulgarian Supreme Court interpretative decisions: civil cases

Over the last eighteen months the Supreme Court of Cassation (ВКС) has handed down an unusually concentrated series of interpretative decisions (тълкувателни решения, ТР) in civil cases that redraws key positions in practice: from the deduction of pensions and benefits from compensation for non-pecuniary damage under Art. 200(3) of the Labour Code (КТ) (ТР No. 1/2023 ОСГК, decision of 5 March 2026), through the starting point of the limitation period for the claim under Art. 225(1) of the КТ (ТР No. 3/2024 ОСГК, decision of 23 February 2026), to the setting aside of acts under Art. 51 of the Inheritance Act (ЗН) (ТР No. 4/2024 ОСГК, decision of 24 February 2026). At the same time, at least seven pending interpretative cases are scheduled before the ОСГК, with decisions expected by the end of 2026.

For a lawyer practising in civil cases, and even more so in cassation practice, knowing this line of interpretation is not an academic luxury. Interpretative decisions under Art. 130(2) of the Judiciary Act (ЗСВ) are binding on all courts and on executive and administrative bodies, and they apply to every pending case from the day they are adopted. This analysis gives a structured overview of the current ТР of the General Assembly of the Civil College (ОСГК) and the General Assembly of the Civil and Commercial Colleges (ОСГТК) with civil-law application, explains the procedure under Art. 124-130 of the ЗСВ and offers practical guidance on citing them correctly in court proceedings.

Legal basis: Art. 124-130 of the ЗСВ and historical continuity

The interpretative activity of the supreme courts is an institution with deep procedural roots. Until 2007 the function was carried out through Decrees of the Plenum of the Supreme Court (ППВС), which still remain binding to the extent that they have not been amended or repealed by a later legislative act or a new interpretative decision. Since the current ЗСВ came into force, the competence has been concentrated in the ВКС (for civil, commercial and criminal cases) and in the Supreme Administrative Court (ВАС) (for administrative ones). The legal framework is spread over four articles, which deserve separate attention.

It is important to tell apart three categories of acts that are often wrongly mixed up in practice. An interpretative decision (ТР) is adopted by a general assembly of one college (ОСГК, ОСТК, ОСНК: the civil, commercial and criminal colleges) or of several colleges (ОСГТК, ОСНГТК). An interpretative ruling (ТП) is adopted jointly by the ВКС and the ВАС when the question falls within the jurisdiction of both supreme courts. Cassation case law under Art. 290 of the Civil Procedure Code (ГПК) has no normative force. It is evidence of uniform or conflicting application, but it binds neither the court nor the parties.

Binding force and effect over time

Reading Art. 130(2) of the ЗСВ shows that the addressees of the binding force are listed exhaustively: the judiciary, the executive, local self-government and all bodies that issue administrative acts. Private persons are not directly bound, but the effect on them is practically the same: the court must apply the interpretation adopted. Effect over time needs particular attention.

Procedure for opening and adopting a decision (Art. 124-130 of the ЗСВ)

Opening an interpretative case is a centralised process that only a defined circle of persons can access. That is also why the number of pending cases usually does not exceed about ten a year for each college.

ВКС colleges for civil cases: ОСГК, ОСГТК, ОСНГТК

The choice of college is not a formality: it signals the nature of the legal question and the scope of the binding interpretation. A mistake in forming the college is grounds for criticism and potential challenge in legal theory, although not for direct reversal.

In practice most interpretative decisions on civil-law questions are adopted by the ОСГК. The ОСГТК takes on almost the whole area of enforcement proceedings and security proceedings, because they engage rules from both the ГПК and the Commercial Act (ТЗ).

Current ОСГК interpretative decisions (2023-2026)

The following overview covers the ОСГК interpretative decisions with declared content as of May 2026. For each one it gives the legal question, the position adopted and the main practical consequences. The dates have been checked against the primary sources on vks.bg.

The decision is of great importance for practice in industrial accidents and occupational diseases. It reverses the earlier tendency of the lower courts to deduct the disability pension or the cash benefits from the National Social Security Institute (НОИ) from the non-pecuniary compensation awarded under Art. 200(3) of the КТ. From 5 March 2026, lawyers for injured workers can insist on the full amount without giving way to objections of double compensation.

The decision touches two closely related procedural lines in inheritance law: the way non-contentious (охранителни) acts under Art. 51 of the ЗН can be challenged, and the form of the statement accepting or renouncing an inheritance under Art. 49(1) of the ЗН. The route to setting aside the entry is now closed under the procedure for setting aside judgments that have entered into force. The position comes close to the general construction that non-contentious acts can be challenged only through an express procedure.

The decision ends a dispute of many years over whether the limitation period under Art. 358 of the КТ for compensation for unlawful dismissal runs from the termination of the employment contract or from the entry into force of the judgment that declares the dismissal unlawful. The ВКС rules in favour of the first position, which matters for strategies on filing claims, as these often drag on for years through several court instances.

Also adopted at the end of 2024 is ТР No. 2/2023 ОСГК (decision of 12 December 2024), whose operative part is published on the ВКС website and should be checked by practitioners ad hoc, whenever the procedural situation calls for it. From a methodological point of view it is always advisable to read the full text of the reasoning directly, because conclusions about the scope of application are often drawn from it rather than from the operative part.

Pending interpretative cases before the ОСГК (as of May 2026)

Pending interpretative cases are the strongest signal of coming changes in practice. They do not bind the court yet, but a good lawyer follows the scheduled state of play and warns clients of potential turns on pivotal questions. As of May 2026, the ВКС website lists the following scheduled cases before the ОСГК.

Particular attention should go to the two cases for 28 May 2026 (ТД No. 3/2025 ОСГК and ТД No. 3/2026 ОСГК), which are scheduled jointly on the same day. Such concentration signals that the legal questions are connected and that the ОСГК may take a unified approach.

Key ОСГТК interpretative decisions with civil-law application

The General Assembly of the Civil and Commercial Colleges (ОСГТК) is competent on questions from the overlapping territory of civil and commercial law. It is especially active in the areas of enforcement proceedings, security measures and limitation periods.

It is worth making clear that ТР No. 1/2021 was adopted by the ОСГК (the Civil College), not by the ОСГТК, even though the question is procedural. In legal practice the two colleges are sometimes mixed up when citing, which is a mistake to avoid, especially in cassation appeals.

How to cite an interpretative decision in a statement of claim and a cassation appeal

The standard for citing interpretative decisions in documents filed with the court is not legally binding, but it has settled into a stable practice. Following it makes things easier for the opposing party and the court and strengthens the authority of the legal analysis.

Typical mistakes when relying on a ТР

Practical tools for following new ТР

Legal practice in civil-law matters calls for systematic monitoring of interpretative case law. Below is a realistic set of sources and tools used by practising lawyers in Bulgaria.

Closing remarks

The interpretative activity of the ВКС remains the strongest instrument for unifying case law in civil-law matters and, at the same time, the only means by which the Supreme Court of Cassation can durably correct long-established but mistaken lines in the lower courts. The series of ТР No. 1/2023, ТР No. 4/2024 and ТР No. 3/2024 ОСГК in 2026 shows that practice is entering an active stage of readjusting key balances: from compensation for non-pecuniary damage in employment law to the procedure under Art. 51 of the ЗН and the starting point of the limitation period in unlawful dismissal.

For a practising lawyer the only sustainable approach is to follow the primary source (vks.bg) systematically, to cite correctly and to check the effect over time. The pending interpretative cases before the ОСГК until the end of 2026 suggest that the next twelve months will bring several more important changes in practice, especially on acquisitive prescription, КОНПИ and judicial review of non-contentious acts.

For further context on a specific interpretative decision on costs, we recommend our analysis of ТР No. 6/2012 ОСГТК on costs in court proceedings, and for a broader look at the pending cases of the ВКС, our review of the interpretative cases of the ВКС for 2026. The analysis of the absolute limitation period under Art. 112 of the Obligations and Contracts Act (ЗЗД) is also useful for the procedural side of limitation periods.

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