In a recent interpretative decision, the Civil and Commercial Chambers of the Supreme Court of Cassation provided important clarification regarding the procedural rights of third-party interveners in civil proceedings, and more specifically whether such parties may raise objections against a claim after the expiry of the time limit for filing a statement of defence.

What дid the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court distinguished between:

• a third-party intervener joined upon the defendant’s request pursuant to Article 219 of the Bulgarian Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”); and
• a third party voluntarily intervening in the proceedings pursuant to Article 218 CPC.

The Court held that a third-party intervener joined at the request of the defendant may raise objections that have already become procedurally barred for the defendant itself. According to the Court, procedural preclusion constitutes a sanction for the procedural inactivity of the specific party and cannot automatically extend to a person that was not yet participating in the proceedings at the time the preclusion occurred.

The Court further emphasized that a third-party intervener possesses independent procedural rights and is entitled to actively participate in the defence of the case, including by raising objections and submitting evidence.

Applicable time limits

The joined third-party intervener must be granted a time limit equivalent to that provided for filing a statement of defence:

• one month in ordinary civil proceedings; and
• two weeks in commercial disputes.

This time limit starts running from the service of the court order constituting the third party in the proceedings together with a copy of the statement of claim.

When is this not permitted?

The Supreme Court further held that where the third party has voluntarily intervened in the proceedings pursuant to Article 218 CPC, it accepts the proceedings in the procedural stage existing at the time of intervention. Consequently, such party may not raise objections that have already become precluded for the assisted party.

An additional exception applies in the case of transfer of the disputed right under Article 226(2) CPC.

Practical significance

The interpretative decision is of substantial practical importance for both civil and commercial litigation, as it establishes clearer rules regarding the procedural rights of third-party interveners and further reinforces the principles of equality of arms and effective judicial protection in Bulgarian civil procedure.