Restart for Judicial Mediation in Bulgaria©

Courts May Order Parties in a Case to Attend a Mediation Information Session at the Court's Expense

On 27 June 2025, the National Assembly adopted at second reading the Law on Amendments and Additions to the Civil Procedure Code, which introduces the possibility for parties in certain categories of civil and commercial cases to be obliged to participate in a mediation information session. These changes resulted from a Constitutional Court decision of 1 July 2024 declaring unconstitutional the previous provisions (adopted in February 2023) introducing mandatory participation in the first mediation session. Consequently, the reform in the judicial mediation, scheduled to begin on July 1, 2024—the very day the ruling was annonced—has been suspended. (You can read more about the repealed provisions in this article.) The new amendments come to replace the declared unconstitutional regulations, also taking into account the reasoning set out in the Constitutional Court's decision. The Act is promulgated on 8 July 2025, and the new provisions apply to court cases filed after its entry into force.

What Changes with the New Law?

Key changes are in the following areas:

1. What Is Mandatory

Unlike the previous regulation, which provided for an obligation to participate in a first mediation meeting lasting between one and three hours, the new legislation requires participation in a mediation information meeting. Following such a meeting, the parties may agree to start a mediation procedure, but this is entirely up to their will.

2. Scope of Application

Changes are also made to the types of cases for which this requirement applies:

2.1. Under Article 140a, Paragraph 1, the court will oblige parties to attend a mediation information session in cases involving:

• Disputes on management of jointly owned property or allocation of its use pursuant to Article 32(2) of the Property Act;

• Monetary claims arising from co-ownership under Art. 30 par. 30(3) and 31(2) of the Property Act;

• Partition of property (under Art. 34 of the Property Act);

• Divorce under Art. 49 of the Family Code, along with compulsorily joined claims pursuant to Article 322(2);

• Disputes concerning the exercise of parental rights and obligations, the child's residence, personal relations with the child and the child's alimony under Article 123(2) and Article 127(2) of the Family Code;

• Modification of the residence, custody, personal relations and children's alimony in the event of a change of circumstances after the divorce;

• Alimony;

• The determination of measures for personal relations with the grandparents under Article 128 of the Family Code;Child support;

• Employment disputes regarding wages or benefits arising out of the employment relationship, unlawful dismissal, or reinstatement;

• Monetary or non-monetary claims in civil disputes arising out of a contract, unilateral transaction, tort, unjust enrichment or conducting another's business without authority with a claim value of up to BGN 25 000;

• Monetary or non-monetary claim in commercial disputes arising from trade transactions, regardless of the claim amount.

Excluded from the scope are: the disputes under the Condominium Property Act, disputes for payment of the value of a company share upon termination of participation in a limited liability company, as well as disputes on the liability of a manager or controller of a limited liability company for damages caused to the company, which previously fell under the undiscretionary obligation for mandatory mediation. Furthermore, the following categories of disputes which were previously subject to compulsory mediation at the discretion of the judge are excluded: disputes concerning the existence, termination, annulment or rescission of a contract or of a unilateral transaction or the conclusion of a definitive contract with a claim value of up to BGN 25 000, disputes concerning ownership and other rights in rem over property or trespass to possession, the protection of membership rights in a commercial company under Article 71 of the Commercial Act or the revocation of a decision of the general meeting of the company under Article 74 of the Commercial Act, as well as claims under Article 58(1)(b) of the Commercial Act. 1 of the Cooperative Societies Act and Article 25(4) of the Non-Profit Legal Entities Act, as well as disputes over intellectual property rights.

2.2. Judicial Discretion

Unlike the previous rules, which distinguished two groups of cases, in the first of which the obligation to participate in mediation was a requirement of the law, while in the second it was at the judge's discretion, with the new rules the obligation of the parties to participate in an information meeting will always depend on the judge's discretion. This understanding is derived from the provision of Article 140a(2) of the draft, according to which "the court shall oblige the parties in the cases referred to in paragraph 1 / author's note: paragraph 1 defines the range of cases for which an information meeting is envisaged/ when it considers that the dispute is suitable for mediation, taking into account all the circumstances...."

The criteria by which the court will assess whether the dispute is suitable for referral to mediation are non-exhaustively listed in Article 140a, para. 3 and remain the same. These include: the existence of a continuing relationship between the parties or of multiple cases between them which have a connection with each other; multiple claims and counterclaims in the case; the undisputed nature of the key facts of the case; and other factors, e.g. where the costs of the proceedings are likely to significantly outweigh the material interest in the case or a speedy voluntary resolution of the dispute is in the interests of the parties or the child, as well as where there are other circumstances which indicate that the dispute is suitable for mediation.

2.3. Referral by Party's Consent

Apart from the cases under point 2.1., falling within the scope of the mandatory information meeting, there is also an obligation for the court to invite to mediation when the parties have expressed their consent to it in writing before the commencement of the case, as well as to refer to mediation when the agreement has been reached through an exchange of the case papers.

3. Exceptions

There are also changes to the exceptions in which the courts shall not compel attendance at an information meeting.

3.1. According to the new rules, the court shall not oblige the parties to participate in an information meeting if: the mediation procedure is excluded for the relevant type of dispute by law; the first notice of the case has not been served on the defendant; in the case of an admission of the claim, and if evidence of violence committed against a litigant by the opposing party, the existence of a risk to the life or health of the child or to his best interests is presented in the case.

In addition, new exceptions are provided in comparison with the previous regulation: if the participation of the parties in the information meeting makes it difficult to consider and resolve the case within a reasonable time, and if the parties are unable to dispose of the right - the subject of the case, and also if there are other circumstances that point to a reasonable assumption that the mediation will not lead to a positive result /Article 140 "a", paragraph 4 of the CCP/.

3.2. Removed from the Exceptions are:

• Cases involving the state;

• Consumer disputes.

3.3. Another new feature is the express possibility for the parties to indicate the obstacles to mediation in the statement of claim, or the reply to the statement of claim, and provide evidence of their existence.

4. Costs

The information meeting and any subsequent mediation procedure conducted in a pending court case (in which the parties were obliged to participate in an information meeting) with a total duration of up to three hours shall be paid from the court's budget.

5. Incentives and Sanctions

Significant changes have been made also to the sanctions in relation to unjustified failure to attend an information meeting, and to the incentives where a settlement is reached as a result of mediation.

5.1. Sanctions for Unjustified Absence

Under the newly adopted provisions, a party who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to attend an information meeting when required to do so by the court shall pay the costs of the one-hour information meeting; where both parties fail to attend, the costs of the meeting shall be shared equally by the parties. (By comparison, under the previous arrangements, such a party could be ordered to pay the costs of the case regardless of its outcome.)

5.2. Incentives for Settlement

An increase in incentives to settle in mediation is also introduced, which also includes mediation conducted outside a court center. 

According to the newly adopted provision of Article 78(9) of the CCP, when the court approves a settlement reached in a mediation procedure, the claimant gets back:

• 70% of the court fee for out-of-court mediation;

• 85% if mediation followed a required info session at a court center.

It is expressly provided that the refund shall also concern the state fee for an appeal before an appellate instance if the agreement was reached during the appeal proceedings.

6. THE SPECIFICS OF THE PROCEDURE

6.1. Mandatory participation in a mediation information meeting may be ordered only once during the proceedings of the case and the proceedings of the case shall not be stayed while this meeting is held.

6.2. A new requirement is for the parties to attend the information meeting in person. Participation of the parties through a representative will be possible in the cases under Article 22, paragraph 2 of the Mediation Act (i.e., when the party lacks legal capacity or has limited capacity, when the party to the case is the state, a municipality, or a legal entity, as well as when more than two persons participate on the side of the plaintiff or the defendant—in the latter case, these persons may expressly authorize a common representative). The parties may be accompanied by a lawyer at the information meeting, but this is not compulsory and is at their discretion.

6.3. Timeline: The information meeting itself shall be held within a time limit set by the judge. By mutual agreement of the parties, this period may be extended, and a mediation procedure may be initiated. In such cases, the information meeting/mediation shall take place simultaneously with the hearing of the case, unless the parties have requested a stay of the proceedings.

6.4. A new provision expressly provides that when the case has been clarified in fact and in law, the court shall proceed to decide it, notwithstanding that no information meeting has been held and irrespective of the reasons for not holding one. In such cases, the proceedings may only be adjourned for an information meeting or a mediation procedure upon the express request of all parties.

6.5. Another specific feature is that when the parties are obliged to participate in a mediation information meeting, such a meeting will be held only in court centers, which will be attached to each district court, and the mediator in this procedure can only be a person from the list of mediators at a court center, for whom specific selection and additional training requirements will be provided. With the new changes, the requirement for legal education of mediators at the court centers is abolished. However, it is foreseen that, at its discretion, depending on the subject matter of the case, the court may specify that the mediator has to be a lawyer.

6.6. Another new feature is the possibility that, where the information meeting is followed by a mediation procedure by agreement of the parties, this procedure may also be conducted outside the court center.

6.7. Jurisdiction rules are also provided for the approval of an agreement reached in mediation as a court settlement. As in the previous regulation, when the parties wish their agreement to be approved as a court settlement, it will be approved by the court before which the case in which the mediation procedure was initiated is pending, and, where the agreement covers the subject matter of several pending cases, by the court before which the first pending case was brought, after which the parties shall submit the approved agreement to the other courts, which shall terminate (depending on the content of the agreement) the proceedings pending before them in whole or in part.

Conclusion 
It might be concluded that the newly adopted provisions are a major step forward in building a culture of voluntary and amicable dispute resolution. They provide an opportunity for the parties to obtain adequate information about mediation, at no cost, and be able to make an informed decision whether to try to resolve their dispute through mediation, while also offering strong financial incentives for resolving disputes amicably.
Positive developments also include: the option to mediate both in and outside the court system after the info session; broader refund incentives and their extention to out of court mediations; more flexible mediator requirements, as well as preservation of the status of court centers mediators selected before the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
Importantly, these reforms do not limit the parties’ right to seek out-of-court mediation at any point. In many cases, this remains the most appropriate route, offering the freedom to choose a mediator or center based on the case’s specifics. Courts also retain the power to encourage (but not compel) mediation in cases not covered by the new mandatory framework under Article 140a CPC.

Author: Attorney Lyubka Vassileva-Karapanova

Last update: 8 July 2025

*This article was originally written in Bulgarian. Its English translation was made with AI assistance, under the author’s supervision and approval.