Administrative violations in Bulgaria: ЗАНН full analysis 2026

The Administrative Violations and Sanctions Act (ЗАНН) has been in force since 1969 and remains one of the most widely applied legal acts in the Bulgarian legal system. With more than 50 amendments, the latest in February 2026 (State Gazette (ДВ) issue 17/2026), and many interpretative decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court (ВАС), a systematic knowledge of the Act is a necessity for every practising lawyer, whether they work in administrative, tax or employment law.

This analysis covers the whole structure of the ЗАНН, with the emphasis on the procedure for drawing up a report establishing an administrative violation (акт за установяване на административно нарушение, АУАН) and issuing a penal decree (наказателно постановление, НП), the limitation periods and the current case law of the ВАС.

What the ЗАНН regulates: scope and structure

The ЗАНН is the main legal act that sets the general rules on administrative penal liability in the Republic of Bulgaria. Under Art. 1 ЗАНН, the Act determines the general rules on administrative violations and penalties, the procedure for establishing violations, for imposing and enforcing penalties, and for appealing penal decrees.

The ЗАНН has five main chapters: general provisions (Chapter I), administrative violations and penalties (Chapter II), administrative penal proceedings (Chapter III), appeal of penal decrees (Chapter IV) and enforcement of penal decrees and decisions (Chapter V). This logical sequence follows the whole life cycle of an administrative penalty, from defining the violation to enforcing the sanction.

Particularly important is the provision of Art. 11 ЗАНН, which provides for the subsidiary application of the General Part of the Criminal Code (НК) on questions of fault, mental capacity, circumstances excluding liability, forms of complicity, preparation and attempt. This means that where the ЗАНН has no special regulation, the corresponding provisions of the НК apply.

The concept of an administrative violation (Art. 6-11 ЗАНН)

The statutory definition of an administrative violation is in Art. 6 ЗАНН. An administrative violation is an act (an action or an omission) that breaches the established order of state administration, is committed with fault and is declared punishable by an administrative penalty imposed through an administrative procedure. Three cumulative elements make up the violation: an objective one (an act breaching the order), a subjective one (fault) and a formal one (being declared punishable).

The forms of fault in administrative violations follow the general rules of criminal law. Under Art. 7(1) ЗАНН, an act is culpable when it is committed intentionally or through negligence. With intent, the offender is aware of the socially dangerous nature of the act and wants or accepts the occurrence of the consequences. With negligence, the offender did not foresee the consequences but was obliged and able to foresee them, or foresaw them but thought they would be prevented.

Circumstances excluding liability are self-defence (Art. 8 ЗАНН) and necessity. The grounds in the НК also apply in a subsidiary way through the reference in Art. 11 ЗАНН. Preparation and attempt in administrative violations are punishable only in expressly provided cases (Art. 9 ЗАНН), and complicity is governed by the rules of Art. 10 ЗАНН.

Types of administrative penalties (Art. 12-21 ЗАНН)

The purpose of administrative penalties, set out in Art. 12 ЗАНН, is re-educational and preventive. Penalties are imposed to have a corrective and cautionary effect on the offender and a cautionary effect on other citizens. Art. 13 ЗАНН lists exhaustively three types of administrative penalty: public reprimand, a fine, and temporary deprivation of the right to practise a particular profession or activity.

Beyond the three main penalties, Art. 20-21 ЗАНН provide for the forfeiture of items to the state. Items belonging to the offender that were used to commit the violation are forfeited, if the relevant law so provides. This measure is ancillary and applies cumulatively with the main penalty.

Of particular importance in practice is Art. 83 ЗАНН, which introduces the property sanction (имуществена санкция) for legal entities and sole traders. Unlike a fine, the property sanction is a separate type of sanction provided for legal subjects, which by definition have no fault in the criminal-law sense. As we will see below, the distinction between a fine and a property sanction matters a great deal for the limitation periods.

Administrative penal proceedings: from АУАН to НП

Administrative penal proceedings go through several mandatory stages, each bound by strict procedural time limits. A breach of those time limits and requirements is in itself a ground for revoking the penal decree.

Minor case under Art. 28 ЗАНН

The institution of the minor case under Art. 28 ЗАНН allows the penalising authority to decide that the violation is of manifestly insignificant danger to society and, instead of a penalty, to impose a warning. This assessment falls within the category of operational discretion, but it is subject to judicial review.

For a detailed analysis of the criteria for a minor case, judicial review and current practice of the Supreme Court of Cassation (ВКС), including Decision No. 4/2025 of the Constitutional Court, see our specialised analysis: Art. 28 ЗАНН: Minor case, analysis and practice 2026.

Appealing a penal decree

A penal decree can be appealed before the district court for the place where the violation was committed within 14 days of its service (Art. 59(1) ЗАНН, amended ДВ issue 109/2021, in force since 23 December 2021). Until December 2021 the period was 7 days, but the latest amendments doubled it to ensure more effective protection of offenders’ rights.

Appeal proceedings before the district court have two tiers. The district court’s decision can be appealed on points of law (cassation) before the relevant administrative court within 14 days of notification. The cassation instance checks the correctness of the decision only on the grounds stated in the appeal and under Art. 63 ЗАНН in conjunction with the Administrative Procedure Code (АПК).

The grounds for revoking a penal decree can be grouped into three categories: material procedural breaches when drawing up the АУАН or issuing the НП, breaches of substantive law (no act, no fault, wrong legal classification) and disproportion of the penalty imposed.

Limitation periods under the ЗАНН

Limitation in administrative penal proceedings is governed by two main provisions: Art. 34 ЗАНН (the limitation for starting the proceedings, i.e. for drawing up the АУАН) and Art. 82 ЗАНН (the limitation for enforcing the penalty imposed). Knowing the limitation periods is of paramount importance for practising lawyers, because an expired limitation period is an absolute ground for discontinuing the case or revoking the decree.

In practice the absolute limitation for enforcing a fine is 3 years (2 years under Art. 82(1), letter “а”, plus 50%), for deprivation of a right 9 months, and for a public reprimand 4.5 months. This limitation runs regardless of suspension and interruption and is the final time limit after which the penalty cannot be enforced under any circumstances.

Current practice of the ВАС and the ВКС

Two interpretative decisions of the ВАС are decisive for how the limitation periods under the ЗАНН are applied and deserve special attention from every practising lawyer.

ТР No. 3/2014 of the ВАС: fine vs. property sanction

By Interpretative Decision No. 3 of 3 July 2014 in interpretative case No. 5/2013 of the General Assembly of the Chambers (ОСК) of the ВАС, the General Assembly of the Chambers ruled that the limitation periods under Art. 82(1), letter “а” ЗАНН (2 years) do not apply to the property sanction under Art. 83 ЗАНН. The property sanction is a public state receivable within the meaning of Art. 162(2), item 5 of the Tax and Social Insurance Procedure Code (ДОПК) and the 5-year limitation under Art. 171 ДОПК applies to it.

The practical significance of this distinction is considerable. Whereas a fine of BGN 500 imposed on a natural person is time-barred after 2 years (or 3 under the absolute limitation), a property sanction of BGN 500 imposed on a single-member limited company (ЕООД) for the same violation can be enforced within 5 years. Lawyers representing legal entities should bear this difference in mind when planning the defence.

ТР No. 2/2017 of the ВАС: limitation after interruption

By Interpretative Decision No. 2 of 12 April 2017 of the General Assembly of the First and Second Chambers of the ВАС, the ВАС ruled that after the limitation period is interrupted in the case of Art. 82(2) ЗАНН during enforcement of a “fine”, a new 2-year limitation under Art. 82(1), letter “а” ЗАНН begins, not the 5-year limitation under Art. 171 ДОПК. This decision clarified that even after an interruption (for example by taking steps to collect the fine), the new limitation period remains 2 years under the ЗАНН.

Practical tips for lawyers: defending ЗАНН cases

A successful defence in administrative penal cases requires a systematic approach. Practice shows that the most common grounds for revoking penal decrees are procedural breaches when drawing up the АУАН and an expired limitation period. The following checklist can serve as a starting point when analysing any case.

Pravko provides legal information but does not replace advice from a lawyer. For specific ЗАНН cases, consult a licensed lawyer.