The Government adopted on 29 July 2026 amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) which introduce special proceedings designed to establish, within a short timeframe, that a claim is manifestly unfounded where it has been brought not to safeguard legitimate interests and rights that have been infringed, but with the primary aim of obstructing, restricting or penalising the defendant on account of their public participation.
These are the so-called SLAPP cases (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) or ‘slap’ cases.
The Minister of Justice, Nikolay Naydenov, stated today that the amendments are expected to be adopted shortly by the National Assembly and to provide protection against SLAPP suits. He predicted that they will also have a deterrent effect and will limit the bringing of such claims.
At present, the Code of Civil Procedure contains no rules for dealing with manifestly unfounded claims (apart from those under Article 239 of the Code of Civil Procedure), and the merits of the case are assessed in the judgment on the substance. Even if the court finds that the claimant is not seeking genuine protection of their rights and interests, it cannot refuse to hear the case.
For this reason, a new Chapter Thirty-three ‘b’ is now being introduced into the Civil Procedure Code, which regulates the new special proceedings due to the defendant’s public participation.
The amendments provide the following definition of ‘public participation’. This is “a statement or activity by a natural or legal person in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of information, freedom of the arts and sciences, or freedom of assembly and association, as well as related preparatory and supporting actions, on a matter of public interest”.
The draft also defines what is meant by ‘a matter of public interest’. According to the definition in the draft, this is a matter which is likely to affect the rights and legitimate interests of the public in areas such as:
fundamental rights, public health and safety, the environment or climate;
the activities of a person who is a public figure in public life or the private sector;
matters under consideration in proceedings before the legislative, executive or judicial authorities, local government bodies and other proceedings provided for by law;
reports or publicly disclosed information concerning corruption, fraud or other criminal offences or administrative offences;
activities aimed at safeguarding the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union or the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, including the protection of democratic processes from unlawful interference, in particular through the fight against disinformation.
The amendments provide that the defendant may request that a claim brought on the grounds of their public participation be dismissed as manifestly unfounded. Such a request may be made no later than at the first hearing in the case.
The court shall rule on the request within one week. Where it finds that the claim is manifestly unfounded, it shall instruct the claimant to substantiate their claim within one week.
If the claimant fails to do so, or if the claim nevertheless remains manifestly unfounded, the court shall, in a closed hearing, issue a ruling dismissing it.
The Code of Civil Procedure sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which the court must take into account in order to determine whether the claimant is abusing their procedural rights, because the defendant has a ‘public interest’. These are:
an imbalance of power between the parties;
the claim, or part thereof, including the value of the claim, being unfounded, disproportionate or excessive in relation to the alleged infringement of the claimant’s rights;
multiple proceedings or coordinated legal actions brought by the claimant or by related parties in relation to similar issues or based on the same facts, including those with a cross-border element;
intimidation, harassment or threats by the claimant or their representatives before or during the proceedings, including through media publications, economic or political pressure, as well as similar conduct by the claimant in other cases;
abuse of procedural rights by the claimant, including delaying the proceedings, forum shopping, or discontinuing proceedings at a later stage, with the aim of creating difficulties for the defendant’s defence or incurring additional costs;
deliberately directing the claim against natural persons rather than against the legal entity responsible for the actions or statements referred to in the statement of claim;
actions aimed at discrediting the defendant or disclosing details of the defendant’s private life;
other actions by the claimant aimed at impeding the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of information on matters of public interest, the freedom of the arts and sciences, or the freedom of assembly and association on matters of public interest.
The Council of Ministers explained that, as a specific measure against the abuse of rights, a rule is being introduced whereby interim relief in proceedings arising from public participation shall not be granted unless the claimant has submitted convincing written evidence.
Furthermore, at the defendant’s request, the court may grant security for the legal costs which the defendant can reasonably be expected to incur in connection with their participation in the proceedings. The court shall grant such security if it considers that the case concerns public participation and that the claim is unlikely to succeed.
A final judgment in a ‘slap’ case, containing the claimant’s full details, shall be published on the Unified Portal for E-Justice by the court that delivered the judgment.
Amendments to the Advocacy Act also provide for the possibility for lawyers to represent, free of charge, those affected by a ‘slap’ case.
Attorney Vasilev has been part of the law firm’s team since its establishment when he was a law student at Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski.” From the very beginning, he demonstrated exceptional commitment and ability to successfully handle even the most complex legal cases.
