The article focuses on the current legal framework and court practice regarding the topic in Bulgaria.

States are primarily subjects of international public law. Therefore, even legal disputes between states and private entities are initially resolved by international, supranational judicial institutions. An example of such supranational proceedings are the proceedings under Art. 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to which any person, non-governmental organization, or group of persons who claim to be the victim of a violation by one of the States Parties to the Convention of the rights proclaimed in the Convention or in the Protocols thereto have the right to file a complaint against the relevant state with the European Court of Human Rights. However, as an exception, a foreign state may be a party in a civil case in the Republic of Bulgaria, brought before the Bulgarian court, and it is precisely these proceedings that are the subject of this article.

The occasions on which the Bulgarian court has jurisdiction over claims to which a foreign state is a party are four and are exhaustively listed in Art. 18, para. 1, items 2-5 of the Civil Procedure Code /CPC/: claims based on contractual relations when the performance of the obligation is in the Republic of Bulgaria; claims for damages when the tort is committed in the Republic of Bulgaria; claims regarding rights to hereditary property and unclaimed inheritance in the Republic of Bulgaria; and cases that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bulgarian courts. Para. 2 of the norm introduces additional restrictions, stipulating that the specified hypotheses do not apply to legal contracts and actions performed in the fulfillment of official functions of persons, respectively, in connection with the exercise of sovereign rights of the foreign state. The norm does not distinguish EU Member States and other countries, as all foreign states can be defendants in proceedings before the Bulgarian court under the same procedural order. Insofar as, according to Art. 27, para. 1 of the CPC, the one with procedural legal capacity is the one who has legal capacity under the substantive law, only states that are officially recognized by the Republic of Bulgaria can be defendants in cases before the Bulgarian courts. In this sense, in countries with a federal form of government, the individual subjects of the federation (e.g., Bavaria within the Federal Republic of Germany, Catalonia within the Kingdom of Spain), regardless of how broad their autonomy is, do not have independent legal personality in the Bulgarian civil process and therefore cannot be defendants in claims brought before the Bulgarian court.

Theoretical and practical interest arises from the procedural option regulated in Art. 18, para. 1, item 3 of the CPC to file a damages claim against a foreign state before the Bulgarian court.

An important clarification in relation to the considerations expressed below in the article is that the Bulgarian Liability of the State and the Municipalities for Damages Act /LSMDA/ regulates the special delictual liability only of the Bulgarian State; therefore, it does not apply to claims brought against foreign states. However, since there are no special rules regarding these claims, it shall be assumed that some of the provisions of the LSMDA could still be applied in the proceedings under consideration, albeit by analogy. For example, in the proceedings under Art. 18, para. 1, item 3 of the CPC, the rule of Art. 9a of the LSMDA in conjunction with Art. 2a of the Tariff for the State Fees Collected by Courts under the CPC could apply by analogy, considering that a simple state fee of a low amount is collected for damages claims under LSMDA, in view of the need for maximally efficient and accessible defense of the injured party.

Another specific feature of the proceedings under Art. 18, para. 1, item 3 of the CPC is that the rules regarding the procedural representation of the state by law, established in Art. 31 of the CPC (stipulating that the state is represented by the Minister of Finance, save as otherwise provided in law, and in cases related to real estates owned by the state—by the Minister of Regional Development and Public Works), do not apply to it, since these rules also apply only to the procedural representation of the Bulgarian state. In the proceedings under Art. 18, para. 1, items 2-5 of the CPC with a defendant foreign state, the latter is represented by law by its diplomatic representative (ambassador or, in the absence of such, another diplomatic officer) in accordance with Art. 3, par. 1, l. “a” of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in force for Bulgaria since 15.02.1968. Therefore, in its written claim, in accordance with Art. 127, para. 1, item 2 of the CPC, the claimant shall indicate as the address of the defendant the address of the relevant diplomatic mission (embassy).

From a procedural legal point of view, in order for a claim brought under Art. 18, para. 1, item 3 of the CPC to be admissible, in addition to the general procedural prerequisites applicable to any claim, there shall also be one additional, special prerequisite, expressly regulated in the mentioned provision—the tort must be committed in the Republic of Bulgaria. However, I believe that this prerequisite shall be interpreted as broadly as possible, assuming that the tort was committed in the Republic of Bulgaria in all cases where the claimant has suffered damages in the Republic of Bulgaria. This covers the cases in which the claimant has a permanent or current address (resp. seat and registered office for the legal persons) or workplace (resp. place of economic activity for the legal persons) in the country, i.e., when the person has not lost his connection with Bulgaria and resides (permanently or for certain periods of time) on its territory, therefore it can be assumed that it is on its territory that they have suffered (incurred) the damages. In addition, material damages are expressed in an adverse impact on the person’s patrimony, and the latter, insofar as it represents a set of all material rights and obligations of a given person, is an abstract concept and has no specific spatial boundaries. Non-material damages are expressed in negative experiences felt by the person, such as pain, suffering, impaired authority, honor, good name, etc., which the injured party incurs wherever they reside; that is why they also do not have strictly defined spatial boundaries. Therefore, the place of occurrence of the damages, regardless of the type of damages, shall be understood as the place where they were incurred by the injured party, which largely depends on their subjective perception. The place in the foreign country where the officials (authorities) who have caused the damages fulfill their functions is irrelevant to the admissibility of the claim under consideration, brought before the Bulgarian court.

In view of the above considerations, the territorial jurisdiction of the damages claim against a foreign state is alternative—the claim can be brought before the court in whose district the embassy of the state in Bulgaria is located, on the basis of Art. 108, para. 1 of the CPC, or the court at the place of commission of the act, i.e., at the place in Bulgaria where the claimant resides and has incurred the damages, on the basis of Art. 115, para. 1 of the CPC. The subject-matter jurisdiction of the case is determined according to the general rules, considering the value of the claim.

In the next part of the present article, the damages claim against a foreign state, brought before the Bulgarian court, will be considered from a different legal point of view—the substantive one.