Bulgarian Supreme Court interpretative decisions: binding force

The interpretative decision (тълкувателно решение, ТР) is the strongest tool for unifying case law in Bulgaria, but the institution is often confused with ordinary cassation case law and with interpretative rulings (тълкувателни постановления). For a practising lawyer the difference is not academic: relying on the wrong type of act, or on a decision that has lost its force, is a procedural error with real consequences.

This analysis sets out the legal framework under Art. 124-131а of the Judiciary System Act (Закон за съдебната власт, ЗСВ): what an interpretative decision is, who adopts it and when, what its binding force is, and how to find and cite it correctly in proceedings. Every statement is anchored in the current text of the law.

What an interpretative decision is and why it is binding

An interpretative decision is adopted when the application of a provision has produced contradictory or incorrect practice in the courts. Its aim is to establish a single, binding interpretation of the law which all bodies applying the law must follow from then on. It is precisely this binding force that sets it apart from individual court decisions.

It is worth noting a distinction that lawyers most often overlook. A decision of a three-judge panel of the ВКС under Art. 290 of the Civil Procedure Code (ГПК) is binding practice, but only in the specific case: it binds the parties, not an unlimited circle of addressees. An interpretative decision, by contrast, is an abstract interpretative act with binding force for all bodies applying the law.

Who adopts an interpretative decision, and when: Art. 124 ЗСВ

The ground for adopting a ТР is precisely defined: contradictory or incorrect practice in the interpretation and application of the law. The panel that adopts the decision depends on which chamber or chambers of the supreme court are affected.

Alongside interpretative decisions, the ЗСВ also provides for interpretative rulings (тълкувателни постановления). One clarification matters here, and it is often passed on inaccurately. When the contradiction is between the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court, a joint interpretative ruling is adopted. For the Administrative Violations and Sanctions Act (ЗАНН), the law likewise provides for a joint interpretative ruling of the relevant chambers of the ВКС and ВАС, and not for a separate special panel.

Who can request an ТР: Art. 125 ЗСВ

The circle of persons who can make a request for the adoption of an interpretative decision or ruling is defined exhaustively. The 2020 amendment widened it to include the Council of Ministers and a minister or a collective authority created by law, where they have powers to apply the law concerned.

The procedure step by step (Art. 126-130 ЗСВ)

Interpretative proceedings follow a strictly defined order. From the receipt of the request to the announcement of the decision, the law sets specific time limits that discipline the process.

ТР, interpretative ruling and a decision under Art. 290 ГПК

The three acts are mixed up in everyday work, but they have a different adopting body, a different function and a different binding force. The distinction is decisive when you rely on one in an appeal, a reply or reasons.

Effect over time and loss of force

Interpretative decisions act for the future and remain binding until they are set aside by a new interpretative decision or until the interpreted provision is changed by legislation. This is where a serious practical risk lies: relying on a decision whose force has lapsed undermines your argument.

Examples from current practice

Two current interpretative decisions of the ОСГТК of the ВКС can serve to illustrate the institution. In ТР No. 2/2023 in interpretative case (тълк. д.) No. 2/2023, ОСГТК (announced on 4 July 2024) the general assembly resolved the question of when peremption (перемпция, the lapse of enforcement proceedings) occurs where there are several jointly and severally liable debtors in enforcement proceedings. The act shows the function of a ТР: to give a single answer where practice has split.

A second example is ТР No. 4/2019 in interpretative case No. 4/2019, ОСГТК (announced on 14 October 2022), which unified the question of to whom the debtor's statement acknowledging the claim must be addressed for the limitation period to be interrupted under Art. 116, letter 'а' of the Obligations and Contracts Act (ЗЗД). Both acts illustrate the correct way to cite: with the decision number, the interpretative case number, the chamber and the date of announcement.

How to find and cite an ТР in practice

The official primary source for interpretative decisions is the website of the ВКС, where the interpretative cases are arranged by chamber (ОСНК, ОСГК, ОСТК, ОСГТК, ОСНГТК, as well as those joint with the ВАС). The law also provides for annual publication in a special bulletin.

For a deeper look at individual areas, see our analysis of the interpretative decisions of the ВКС in civil cases, the overview of the upcoming interpretative cases in 2026 by chamber, the study of the ТР on costs as a worked example, and the practical guide on how to read the court acts of the ВКС.

Pravko is an artificial intelligence for Bulgarian legislation that answers questions in natural language and points to the specific provisions it relies on. It can guide you through the legal framework for interpretative decisions, but it provides legal information, not legal advice. For important legal questions, consult a licensed lawyer.