1. Statutory Framework

Interim relief proceedings under the Bulgarian Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) constitute independent and special judicial proceedings whose primary function is to safeguard the effectiveness of a future or already rendered court judgment by providing temporary procedural protection to the claimant. Their purpose is to prevent the risk that the defendant, through factual or legal actions, may frustrate, hinder, or render impossible the enforcement of a judicially recognized right. For this reason, interim relief proceedings are of particular importance in both civil and commercial litigation, insofar as interim measures may directly affect the defendant’s property sphere even before a final judgment on the merits of the dispute has been delivered.

2. Issues in Judicial Practice

At the beginning of 2026, a proposal was submitted for the initiation of interpretative proceedings before the General Assembly of the Civil and Commercial Chambers of the Supreme Court of Cassation (“SCC”). The proposal concerns the nature and substance of the need for interim relief in monetary claims under Art. 391, para. 1 of the CCP, and more specifically whether, in such claims, there exists a factual or legal presumption of the need for interim relief, or whether the court is required in every individual case to carry out an independent and individualized assessment as to the existence of a real risk affecting the claimant’s future satisfaction.

3. Legal Framework for Securing Claims

Pursuant to Art. 391, para. 1 of the CCP: “Security for a claim shall be granted where, in the absence thereof, it would become impossible or difficult for the claimant to exercise the rights under the judgment, and where: the claim is supported by convincing written evidence, or security is provided in an amount determined by the court pursuant to Arts. 180 and 181 of the Law on Obligations and Contracts.”

It follows from the wording of the provision that the legislator has established two cumulative prerequisites for granting interim relief:

1. the existence of a need for interim relief, expressed in the risk that future enforcement may become impossible or substantially impeded; and

2. the probable merits of the claim, established either through convincing written evidence or through the provision of security.

Accordingly, interim relief proceedings do not constitute an automatic consequence of filing a monetary claim. On the contrary, the court must conduct an independent assessment both of the prima facie merits of the claim and of the existence of a genuine need for interim relief. In practice, such need most commonly arises where there is a risk that the defendant may conceal, dispose of, or encumber assets, diminish solvency, or otherwise obstruct future compulsory enforcement. In this sense, interim measures—such as garnishments, injunctions over real property, or other appropriate measures—are temporary and preventive in nature.

A particular feature of the proceedings is that, at their initial stage, the defendant does not participate. The application for interim relief is examined in closed session without prior notification of the opposing party, while the defendant acquires the right to appeal the court order only after the interim measure has been imposed pursuant to Art. 396, para. 1 of the CCP. It is precisely this procedural peculiarity that raises the issue of balancing the claimant’s right to effective judicial protection against the protection of the defendant’s property sphere.

The request submitted to the SCC formulates the following key question:

“Does Art. 391, para. 1 of the CCP establish a presumption of the need for interim relief in claims for monetary amounts, or is the court required in every individual case to carry out a specific and individualized assessment as to the existence of a risk that enforcement may become difficult or impossible?”

Art. 391, para. 1 of the CCP does not contain an explicit statutory presumption that every monetary claim should be secured. Nevertheless, part of the judicial practice in recent years has demonstrated a tendency to treat the need for interim relief in monetary claims as almost automatic, based on the nature of monetary obligations and the risk that the debtor may dispose of assets before the conclusion of the proceedings.

According to the former Minister of Justice, such an approach carries the risk of excessive interference with the defendant’s legal sphere, particularly where interim relief is granted solely on the basis of the probable merits of the claim, without concrete evidence of a risk of frustrated enforcement. This could lead to restrictions on property rights and to significant proprietary consequences for the defendant even before the dispute has been finally resolved.

4. Potential Outcomes of the Interpretative Proceedings

Legal theory and judicial practice outline several possible approaches to the issue raised.

The first possibility is that the SCC may reaffirm the existing understanding that the need for interim relief is not presumed and must be established in each individual case through a specific assessment of the facts, the nature of the legal relationship, the conduct of the defendant, and the risk of future non-enforcement. Such an approach would strengthen the protection afforded to defendants and would limit the possibility of formalistic or mechanical granting of interim measures.

The second possibility is that the Court may adopt an approach based on the principle of proportionality, requiring a balancing between the claimant’s interest in obtaining interim relief and the extent of the interference with the defendant’s property sphere. Under such a model, the court would need to assess not only the probable merits of the claim, but also whether the requested measure is necessary, appropriate, and proportionate.

The third possibility is that the SCC may recognize a limited presumption of the need for interim relief in certain categories of monetary claims—for example, claims arising out of commercial transactions, contractual non-performance, or claims supported by particularly convincing written evidence. While such an approach would facilitate creditor protection, it could also result in limiting the procedural safeguards available to defendants.

5. Compliance with European Standards for the Protection of Rights

The issue of the automatic granting of interim measures is directly related to the guarantees provided under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Pursuant to Art. 6 § 1 ECHR, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, while Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

The imposition of interim measures—particularly garnishments over bank accounts, injunctions over immovable property, or the blocking of commercial activities—constitutes interference with the defendant’s property sphere and must therefore pursue a legitimate aim and comply with the principle of proportionality.

The risk of abuse of interim relief proceedings is not merely theoretical. Situations may arise in which a bad-faith creditor files a formally substantiated claim with the purpose of obstructing the activities of a trader or exerting economic pressure on the defendant. In such cases, even the security provided by the claimant may not always be sufficient to compensate for the damages and lost profits incurred.

An additional concern arises from the fact that the defendant becomes aware of the proceedings only after the interim measure has been imposed, which raises questions as to the adequacy of the procedural safeguards available for the protection of the defendant’s rights.

6. Case Law of the Supreme Court of Cassation

In its consistent case law over recent years, the SCC has maintained the position that the need for interim relief should not be automatically presumed in every monetary claim. The Court has held that the assessment under Art. 391, para. 1 of the CCP must always be specific and based on the individual facts and evidence of the case.

According to the SCC, interim relief cannot be granted solely because the claim is monetary in nature, absent evidence of a real risk that enforcement may become difficult or impossible.

For this reason, any interpretative ruling on the issue would be of substantial importance both for harmonizing judicial practice and for defining the boundaries between effective creditor protection and the safeguarding of the defendant’s property rights.