CMS Expert Guide to Digital Litigation in Bulgaria

Over the last ten years significant efforts have been committed by Bulgaria's legislature, executive bodies of the judiciary and the Bulgarian bar association to digitalise the civil justice system. However, there is still much to be done before the civil justice system is completely digitalised.

One of the main steps in the digitalisation of litigation was the introduction of the Unified Portal for Electronic Justice (UPEJ) on 1 July 2021. The legislator foresaw this system  in Article 360c of the Judiciary System Act (JSA) in 2016. The main purpose of the UPEJ is to provide remote electronic access to cases. A profile can be created in the UPEJ. Once the profile is created, the user can request access to the electronic file of a certain civil or commercial case. In the future, the system will offer the option by email for an electronic service of summons and notification for occurrence of events on a case. Currently, the UPEJ is a static information system. At some point in the future, this system is supposed to become an active platform, which would allow procedural actions to be committed in electronic form. The responsible institutions are working on the development of the system.

Another important system was introduced by § 1, item 31 from the Additional provisions to the Electronic Government Act (EGA). This is the Secure Electronic Delivery System (SEDS). Through this system the user is able to send electronic documents to almost all Bulgarian authorities as well as to other persons or organisations, which exercise public functions or provide public services. Most Bulgarian courts participate in this system, which allows every user to file submissions and electronic evidence to the courts. One could access the system with a qualified electronic signature (QES) or by using a personalised identification code issued by the National revenue agency.

Importantly, from 30 June 2021, part of the compulsory content of every statement of claim in Bulgaria has been the electronic address for service of documents as well as a statement from the party whether they are willing to accept service on this electronic address (i.e. email). This change was part of a package of amendments introduced in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in the State Gazette 110/2020, which concerned digitalisation of civil litigation. These amendments introduced a new chapter in the CPC regulating the procedural actions and legal acts in electronic form. According to this legislation, the courts are supposed to issue their acts and undertake all procedural actions in electronic form unless this is impossible due to their nature, or the law provides for an exception. However, due the fact that the UPEJ system has not been fully developed, the courts do not always comply with these requirements. Unlike the courts, the parties are not obliged to undertake the procedural actions in electronic form. However, there are strong incentives for them to do so. For example, if a claimant files a statement of claim in electronic form, they must pay a 15% lower court fee for filing the claim. Moreover, the party is motivated to keep electronic interaction with the court on this case because once they withdraw their consent for electronic delivery by email, they must pay the entire state fee (i.e. they must pay the 15%).

Article 51, par. 3 of the CPC provides that the service to a lawyer can be conducted only on an electronic address but the lawyer has the right to opt out of this service.

The CPC provides that an electronic document could be presented before the court on a printed copy certified by the party. If requested, the electronic document must be presented in electronic form. Article 3, par. 2 of the Electronic Document and Electronic Trust Services Act (EDETSA) provides that the written form has been complied with if an electronic document has been issued, which contains an electronic statement. Therefore, presenting an electronic document in Bulgarian civil or commercial litigation does not reduce in any way its trustworthiness.

Bulgarian law also regulates the option for gathering evidence through videoconference. This is applicable to witness and expert witness interrogation as well as to oral party statements. The witness, expert witness or the party are summoned to the nearest regional court where through videoconference they participate in the hearing of the court that has requested it. An officer of the regional court checks their identity. There is no option to participate from a private device from home or another private space.

There is a set of digital/technical tools, which can be used in civil and commercial litigation in Bulgaria. The different participants in the process (i.e. the court and the counsels) use different tools depending on their role.

Civil courts in Bulgaria are supposed to use the aforementioned UPEJ when they issue their decisions or rulings. Every judge should be equipped with an electronic signature. The judges should draft acts and sign them by using these signatures. Unfortunately, the system is not complete and the courts do not always comply with the requirements. Also, when an act of the court is issued in an electronic form, it is being printed and attached to the paper version of the respective court file.

The UPEJ system is highly useful. The fact that most of the acts of the court are being e-signed allows almost immediate access to the respective decision or ruling. The system is frequently used for real-time access and information purposes. 

The other system, the SEDS, provides a trustworthy way for filing submissions and other applications to the court. It saves time and costs from using postal services. Also, it seems to be more secure than traditional postal services. This is due to the fact that the system records the time in which a certain submission has been sent, when it was received and allows the recipient to return a message with the submission's registering number. Moreover, while the post relies on a traditional blue-ink stamp for proving the date of sending, the SEDS produces a certificate that is signed with a qualified electronic signature by the Ministry of Electronic Government. The latter may become more reliable proof than the blue-ink stamp of the post office.

Videoconferencing as mentioned above is a regulated option under Bulgarian law. However, the formality of the procedure – the fact that it takes place in another court – renders it unpopular and, hence, it is rarely used.

Other methods such as knowledge management, data analytics, use of artificial intelligence (AI) or use of virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality are still not popular and common within the judiciary and among lawyers. However, there are some law firms that apply data analytics and artificial intelligence only for the purposes of their legal practices.

None of the measures and tools mentioned above is mandatory. There are only some exceptions, which prevents the system from being fully digitalised.

Firstly, a party filing a statement of claim must provide an electronic address (i.e. email) for the service of documents. However, even in this case the party may still state that it does not wish to receive any service through the given email. Hence, it is only compulsory to include an email address in the statement of claim. It is not compulsory to receive an official service through this email.

According to Article 50a of Bulgarian Bar Act, it is mandatory for every lawyer to open and maintain a profile in the UPEJ and in the SEDS. This provision was introduced in 2020 as part of the concept for development of electronic justice in Bulgaria. It was promulgated together with a change in Article 51 of the CPC, which foresaw that a service to a lawyer must be conducted through the UPEJ. With the new amendment from 2 February 2023, this text was deleted from the CPC. Therefore, it is now compulsory for a lawyer to have accounts in both systems but it is not obligatory for them to receive any service through those accounts.

As mentioned above, the courts are supposed to issue their acts and undertake all procedural actions in electronic form. According to Article 360z of JSA, wherever a procedural action initiating proceedings is committed, the court should open an electronic case. The legislation also provides a definition of an “electronic case”. However, the courts still maintain traditional cases on paper in hard copies. Therefore, the courts are now supposed to commit all procedural actions electronically, and to open electronic cases. However, they still maintain the paper files. There is also a procedure in place to guarantee that whenever a paper document reaches the court, it will be reproduced in a reliable manner in the electronic file of the case, and it will be true to the paper original.

In light of the above, litigation in Bulgaria currently cannot be considered a fully digitalised process. Significant development has been made in recent years. As described above, there is a whole new set of electronic tools that can be applied. However, as stated above digitalisation is not complete. The systems mentioned above need to be further developed and new functionalities must be added to them.

Apart from the laws described above, there are no laws that deal specifically with the use of technology in litigation. For example, there are no rules that would allow the court to gather evidence by using modern technology such as AI or virtual reality/augmented reality tools.

Bulgaria has adopted an updated strategy for development of electronic government for the period 2019 to 2025. The development of electronic justice is one of the main pillars of this strategy and an important sub-issue. Based on this document, an updated strategy for the development of electronic justice had to be adopted. However, the last strategic document on the topic is for the period 2014 to 2020. Currently, there is no updated strategy.

This is most probably a result of a difficult political environment over the last two-to-three years. There were several consecutive general parliamentary elections. This happened due to the fact that the political parties couldn’t form a stable coalition government. Currently, Bulgaria awaits the next round of parliamentary elections. This might be a reason why there is no updated strategic document on electronic justice. Therefore, there are no major or interesting projects to be reported.

There are currently no rules, which specifically address the use of AI in litigation.

The technical measures to prevent unwanted access/ IT security breaches are rather conventional.
Access to the profile of every user in the UPEJ is controlled by a username and password. The user is responsible for keeping this data safe and taking measures against unwanted access.

A QES controls access to the SEDS. In fact, one can access their profile in the SEDS only by having a valid QES, which must be issued by a registered provider or by using a personalised identification code issued by the National revenue agency.

In addition, there are authorities, which are responsible for the security of data stored by the electronic justice systems. These are the Supreme Judicial Council (the executive body of judiciary), the Ministry of Electronic Government and a responsible IT person in almost every court.

There are no specific rules relating to the use of data in the electronic justice systems. The general rules, such as the General Data Protection Regulation and the Bulgarian Data Protection Act, are applicable. However, the applicability of data protection rules in the judiciary is very limited due the specific functions of the courts.

The digital platforms mentioned above have not created new risks for business. Due to their purely informational functions, they have not yet caused an increase in the amount of claims filed with the courts.

Currently, the rise of tech companies has not caused an increased caseload in the civil courts. However, this is likely to happen as a result of automated systems for managing and processing legal claims. The legal tech companies provide opportunities for drafting and filing standard and repetitive claims. This is particularly relevant for consumer claims because often they are of a value, which does not justify the legal costs of their pursuit. However, legal tech resolutions are able to significantly reduce legal costs and make the pursuit of such claims a much cheaper enterprise.  Therefore, these tech solutions may create additional challenges to business in the future, which will have to be faced and responded to.

Apart from the digital legal systems mentioned above, there are no other legal tech tools that have been proposed by the Bulgarian government. In view of Bulgaria's political situation, it is likely that tools such as chatbots will be suggested and introduced in the future.