News · BAWJ

Article29 September 2026

"An Unjustifiably High Number of Judges in the Republic of Bulgaria" – Reality or Perception?

Eurostat recently published data showing that, in 2024, Bulgaria ranked fourth in the European Union (EU) in terms of the number of judges per capita (35.4 judges per 100,000 inhabitants)[1]. The statistics reveal that Croatia and Slovenia hold the top two spots, with 43.3 and 40.2 judges per 100,000 inhabitants respectively, followed by Luxembourg with 36.0 judges per 100,000 inhabitants. Various media outlets and non-governmental organizations have interpreted these data as an indication that the number of judges in Bulgaria is excessive; this has sparked a discussion regarding the need for various staffing and financial measures within the judiciary. The findings regarding the excessive number of judges in Bulgaria are based on data published on the Eurostat website. In this context, it is important to note that Eurostat is the statistical office of the European Commission, responsible for conducting comparative analyses across EU Member States based on specific indicators. However, it should be pointed out that the comparison made by Eurostat relies on a single indicator: the number of judges per capita. Relying solely on this indicator is insufficient to substantiate the claim that the number of judges is excessive. To conduct an accurate and objective analysis and comparison among Member States—one capable of leading to the conclusion that the number of judges in certain states is excessive—multiple factors must be taken into account; examining the ratio of judges per capita is merely one of them. In this context, a key factor to consider is the caseload (the number of cases pending adjudication) relative to the number of judges. Consequently, to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the comparative analysis across Member States, it is necessary to examine a range of factors that manifest differently in each EU country; a comprehensive analysis of these factors allows for an objective conclusion as to whether the number of judges is excessive, sufficient, or inadequate in relation to the population's needs. Although Bulgaria ranks among the top EU countries in terms of the number of judges per capita, it also ranks among the highest in terms of the caseload handled by individual judges. According to the consolidated statistical tables on court activity for 2025[2], the number of cases filed with the courts is steadily increasing (a notable example being the significant rise in civil cases under general procedure heard by regional courts in district centers—103,515 in 2025 compared to 98,820 in 2023). Data published on the website of the Supreme Administrative Court indicates that the total number of cases concluded across the country's 28 administrative courts was 43,337—an increase of 3,104 cases (or 7.72%) compared to the previous year. This trend is primarily attributable to three sets of circumstances: the absence of cases handled by non-judicial bodies; an inadequate state response regarding various legal relationships—which inevitably impacts the judiciary's workload; and the ever-increasing number of proceedings assigned to the courts for adjudication. I. In a number of EU Member States, certain types of proceedings are assigned to non-judicial bodies for resolution. Divorce by mutual consent serves as a prime example. A study conducted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, titled "Out-of-court divorce: rules, procedures and cross-border recognition in the Member States"[3], reveals that many EU Member States—including France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania, and Greece—have implemented non-judicial procedures for handling divorce applications based on mutual consent. The study further suggests that the specific factual elements required to authorize a divorce via a non-judicial body vary across different European countries. However, in all Member States, an agreement between the spouses to terminate their marriage is a necessary element. Additional elements required for this procedure to take place are also observed across the various Member States, such as: a minimum duration of the marriage (Spain), the absence of minor children (Spain and Italy), and an agreement between the spouses regarding the family home (Portugal and Slovenia). Certain exceptions to allowing divorce by mutual consent under this procedure have also been introduced where it is necessary to better protect the child's interests (for instance, in France, out-of-court divorce is not permitted if the child needs to be heard by the court). The agreement reached by the spouses must be in writing, with the exception of Greece, where it is permissible for the spouses' consent to be submitted via a joint digital declaration.In most Member States that provide for the possibility of the extrajudicial dissolution of marriage, the competent authority for such proceedings is a notary (France, Greece, Latvia, and Slovenia) or a civil registrar (Italy and Portugal). Some states also assign a role to the public prosecutor in extrajudicial divorce proceedings when it is necessary to safeguard the rights and interests of children born of the marriage (as is the case in Portugal). Regarding the legal effects of such extrajudicial divorce, it should be noted that in some Member States, the act issued by the extrajudicial authority has the same legal consequences as a court judgment (Portugal and Italy), whereas in other European countries, such an act is classified as an official document that produces binding legal effects. In its analysis, the Court of Justice of the EU concluded that the procedure for the extrajudicial dissolution of marriage simplifies and accelerates the divorce process and relieves courts of a significant caseload, while not entirely precluding judicial intervention when it is necessary to protect the interests of children born of the marriage. The foregoing analysis leads to the conclusion that a number of Member States provide for certain types of cases to be handled by extrajudicial authorities. Implementing such a procedure relieves courts of a large number of cases that do not involve significant factual or legal complexity. In light of the foregoing, and returning to the data published by Eurostat, Spain (6.2 judges per 100,000 inhabitants) and Italy (7.9 judges per 100,000 inhabitants) rank at the bottom regarding the number of judges per capita. However, it is precisely in these countries that provision is made for divorce by mutual consent to be handled by a non-judicial authority, thereby significantly easing the caseload of the courts in these Member States. Furthermore, the fact that Italy ranks high in terms of delayed proceedings—a matter noted in numerous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (e.g., Bottazzi v. Italy [4]; Verrascina and Others v. Italy [5]; Montalto and Others v. Italy [6])—cannot be overlooked. Against this background, consideration should be given—*de lege ferenda*—to introducing similar non-judicial bodies in Bulgaria to handle specific categories of cases, such as divorce by mutual consent and other non-contentious proceedings (e.g., renunciation and acceptance of inheritance, authorization for the disposal of a child's property, etc.), while safeguarding the public interest and the best interests of the child where necessary. II. The second aspect to consider when analyzing the factors affecting the workload of courts in Bulgaria relates to the inadequate response from the competent executive authorities regarding the established systemic violation of legislation by certain private entities. The activities of non-bank financial institutions providing credit financing as a business serve as an example of this. Despite consistent and settled case law—both from Bulgarian courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union (following requests for preliminary rulings)—regarding the presence of unfair terms in consumer credit contracts and the use of unfair commercial practices by a significant number of financial institutions in Bulgaria, the institutional response remains insufficient. Unlawful practices must be addressed, and appropriate sanctions and regulatory measures must be implemented. In this context, mention should be made of Judgment No. 6438 of 27 May 2024, delivered by the Administrative Court – Sofia in Administrative Case No. 2851/2024, which upheld Judgment No. 784 of 14 February 2024, issued in the administrative penal case... Case No. 15313/2023 on the docket of the Sofia District Court, upholding a penal decree issued by the Acting Director of a Regional Directorate within the General Directorate "Market Control" at the Commission for Consumer Protection, pursuant to Art. 83, para. 1 of the Law on Administrative Violations and Penalties (ZANN) and Art. 232, para. 2 in conjunction with Art. ...Article 210a of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), whereby the appellant was imposed an administrative penalty in the form of a "pecuniary sanction" amounting to BGN 2,000 (two thousand) for a violation of Article 68e, Paragraph 2, second clause, in conjunction with Article 68g, Paragraph 4, and Article 68c of the CPA. The court established that the financial institution failed to include information regarding costs associated with the credit agreement—as one of its key characteristics—in the Standard European Consumer Credit Information form; instead, the relevant section incorporated information only regarding the event triggering the penalty (failure to secure the agreement with a guarantee from a natural person) and the formula for calculating the daily-accruing penalty claim, thereby creating a genuine risk of misleading the consumer. In light of the cited ruling by the Administrative Court of Sofia City, the enforcement actions taken by the Commission for Consumer Protection upon detecting such violations by financial institutions could be expanded and applied more actively. It should be emphasized that, pursuant to Article 210a of the CPA, violations of Articles 68c, 68g, 68zh (items 1–11, 13, 15, 18–27), and 68k (items 3–6) are punishable by a fine ranging from BGN 1,000 to BGN 30,000 for the liable parties, while... sole traders and legal entities – a pecuniary sanction ranging from BGN 2,000 to BGN 50,000.At the same time, pursuant to Article 232, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, in cases of a violation of the Act sanctioned by a final penal decree, the supervisory authority proposes the revocation of the license and/or operating permit to the issuing authority. The authority that issued the license and/or operating permit rules on the proposal via a reasoned decision; it immediately notifies the supervisory authority referred to in paragraph 1 of the outcome, and—in the event that it revokes the issued license or permit—specifies the date and grounds for the revocation. Despite the powers granted to the Commission, there has been insufficient activity regarding the taking of measures to identify and impose sanctions for violations related to the terms (clauses) under which non-bank financial institutions provide credit financing. This, in turn, has the direct result of these financial service providers persisting in the use of contracts containing numerous unfair terms. These unfair terms are found in standardized (pre-drafted) contracts provided to consumers, leaving judicial proceedings as the sole avenue for redress. It is precisely this lack of preliminary regulation and failure to identify violations committed by financial institutions—specifically regarding the systematic imposition of unfair contract terms on consumers—that generates a significant volume of civil proceedings (both standard lawsuits and order-for-payment proceedings) requiring adjudication by the courts of the Republic of Bulgaria. III. Proceedings entirely new to Bulgarian jurisprudence are being introduced, with the courts once again tasked with handling them in their entirety. In this context, mention should be made of the personal insolvency proceedings provided for in the newly adopted Personal Insolvency Act. Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code have also been adopted at first reading to introduce a procedure for handling so-called SLAPP cases (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). The conclusion to be drawn is that the legislative trend and objective observed in recent years is not to remove certain types of cases—primarily non-contentious proceedings—from the court system; on the contrary, the system is being further burdened with new categories of proceedings. The points outlined above lead to the conclusion that, although Bulgaria ranks high in terms of the number of judges per capita, this should by no means be viewed as an indication of an excessive number of judges; the primary factor to consider is the actual caseload handled by each individual judge. There is a need to rethink the concept of the judiciary’s operations—viewing them not in isolation, but rather within the context of the judiciary's place in the state apparatus; this approach is precisely what would lead to a proper understanding of the judiciary and the identification of the most appropriate measures for its future development. Author: Judge Lidia Georgieva, President of the Svoge Regional Court, Member of the Management Board of the Association of Women Judges in Bulgaria

News22 September 2026

General Meeting of the Bulgarian Association of Women Judges

The Management Board of the Association of Women Judges in Bulgaria invites you to attend the organization's regular General Assembly. The event will take place on October 24, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the "Kaloyan" conference hall of the Meridian Bolyarski Hotel, located at 53 Stefan Stambolov St., Veliko Tarnovo. The meeting will proceed according to the following preliminary agenda: 1. Admission of new members. 2. Discussion and adoption of the Strategy for the activities of the Association of Women Judges in Bulgaria (AWJB) for the 2027–2030 period. 3. Discussion and adoption of the Program for the activities of the AWJB for the 2027–2028 period. 4. Discussion: "Values, Respect, Communication." 5. Discussion on a topical issue: "The election process for the professional quota of the Judges' Chamber of the Supreme Judicial Council of the Republic of Bulgaria." 6. Presentation of ideas for projects and collaborations. Any sitting judge who accepts the Association's Statute, wishes to become a member, and has duly submitted an application to the Management Board via the electronic membership form on the official AWJB website may register their attendance and participation in the General Assembly. Please confirm your attendance no later than October 16, 2026. by completing the electronic form linked to the invitation ( https://form.jotform.com/262632381309052 ) or by sending an official letter to Judge Nedelina Marinova at the email address: nedelina.marinova@bawj.org ,

Article14 September 2026

Children and Drugs

Every criminal court judge sees the end of a human story unfold in the courtroom. People enter the courtroom only after a crime has been committed, an addiction has taken hold, relationships have been shattered, years have been lost, and sometimes, even a human life has been lost. There, the judge’s task is clear: to apply the law impartially, based on the evidence and their own inner conviction. And to mete out punishment. Yet, over the years, I found myself increasingly asking a different question: why did this story begin, and was it possible to avoid such a tragic outcome? I have witnessed truly harrowing human fates—parents driven to tie their child to a radiator just to tear them away from a dealer; men who lost their self-respect and dignity, left without family or friends; and death itself. It was from this question that the Varna Appellate Court’s initiative, "Children and Drugs: Truths and Myths," was born. Drugs are a part of our lives. We know they are present around schools, in clubs, and at parties; that accessing them is terrifyingly easy; and that new substances are constantly emerging. We hear about yet another arrest, another child who has experimented, another young person using drugs. And it seems we have gradually grown accustomed to this—to the point where it is easier to score a dose than to order a pizza. We have developed a tolerance for their very presence. Not because we necessarily approve of them, but because we have come to accept them as an inevitable part of the world we live in. We increasingly rarely ask ourselves why this is the case or whether it truly has to be so. Sometimes, we even uncritically perpetuate one of the most dangerous myths—that there are "dangerous" and "harmless" drugs, that there is a distinction between addiction and "mere experimentation," and that drugs can simply be part of having fun. We must not get used to it. We should not accept it as normal for our children to grow up in an environment where drugs are just another option likely to be offered to them someday. Nor do I think we should resign ourselves to the belief that nothing is within our control. But change will not come through fear and moralizing. Children do not need another lecture where adults tell them how to live. They need an honest conversation. They need knowledge that allows them to distinguish truth from myth. They need the opportunity to ask questions and receive answers that do not underestimate their ability to think and choose for themselves. That is precisely why, from the very beginning, it was important to me not to enter the classroom alone. I can recount what I see as a criminal court judge. I know drugs through the cases I handle—through the crimes, the punishments, the shattered families, and the ruined lives. But there is something I cannot—and should not—speak about from personal experience: what it is like to be an addict. That is why Mitko joins me at these meetings. He understands addiction not from books, statistics, or court files, but from his own life. And he has managed to break free from it. When we stand before the children together, they hear the same messages but from two very different perspectives. I can tell them how drugs end up in the courtroom. Mitko can tell them how, long before that, it enters a person’s life—sometimes almost imperceptibly—through curiosity, peer groups, the desire to fit in, or the conviction that "it won't happen to me." Mitko is not merely an illustration of the judge's words; he is an equal participant in the conversation. His strength lies in the authenticity of his lived experience. It is far easier to believe in experience than in theory. Mitko does not tell the children what might happen; he tells them what did happen to him. The children ask him things they would likely never ask me or a teacher. And he can answer them not with theory, but with his own story—describing how addiction gradually alters one's choices, relationships, values, freedom, and life itself. But there is something else, too—something particularly important to me. Mitko doesn’t stand before them merely as someone who was once an addict; he stands before them as someone who has managed to reclaim his life. These are the kinds of stories I want us to tell. Not stories that point a finger and say, "Look where you could end up," but stories that reveal the high price involved—and, at the same time, the immense power of human choice. Because no one should be defined forever by the hardest period of their life. Over time, I’ve come to realize that this specific dynamic works: the judge, who knows the consequences, and the man who knows the path leading to them—and the way back. We talk a lot. We share stories, explain things, and sometimes argue. The kids ask questions—sometimes directly, sometimes provocatively, and sometimes about things adults prefer not to discuss. And that is precisely when the encounter becomes meaningful. Because this isn’t a lecture on drugs; it is a genuine conversation about choices and their consequences. I don’t know what stays with each child after such a meeting. Nor would I presume to claim that a single conversation can shield them from every future risk. But I have seen how they listen. How they ask questions. How they debate. How, sometimes, they linger after the session ends because there is something more they want to say or ask. We adults owe a debt to our children. They are growing up in a world whose rules they did not write and whose dangers they did not create. We are handing them this world just as we have shaped it and allowed it to become. That is why we cannot simply expect them to learn on their own how to survive in it. We owe them knowledge. Not knowledge of an ideal world where drugs do not exist, but knowledge of the real one—knowledge that will help them survive within it: to recognize risk, to look past the myths, to understand that drugs always come at a cost—a cost that varies depending on the choices one makes, but a cost that is always paid—and to make the right choices even when we are not by their side. For there are no protected children. There are no immune families. Education, a good family, intelligence, love, and care can provide support, but they do not offer absolute protection. The thought that "this won't happen to my child" is perhaps one of the most dangerous myths we adults tell ourselves. And that is why I keep going. We cannot eliminate drugs from the world where our children are growing up. We cannot be by their side at every moment. We cannot make the choice for them. But we can prepare them for the moment of choice. We can provide knowledge. We can shatter at least one myth. We can share a real human story, a question, or a single sentence that offers support exactly when it is needed most. To me, this is the essence of prevention: not promising that no one will ever make a mistake, but increasing the likelihood that a young person, when faced with a choice, will make it in an informed and conscious way. Today, I hope that the journey begun with "Children and Drugs: Truths and Myths" will continue and reach even more children and young people through the Association of Women Judges in Bulgaria’s initiative: "No Myths... I Chose Myself!" I hope we can find other judges willing to step out of the courtroom and talk to young people. I hope we can find others like Mitko—people who have overcome addiction, reclaimed their lives, and are ready to share their experiences honestly and responsibly. I hope we can engage teachers, parents, professionals, and organizations who believe that prevention is a shared cause. If you believe in this, join us. Because drugs have become part of our lives, yet we are not obliged to accept their presence unquestioningly. Changing this societal mindset will not happen on its own. It depends on all of us. As judges, we usually encounter a person at the end of their story. With this initiative, I would like us to be there much sooner—when the story can still be written differently. And when the moment of choice arrives, for a child to have more reasons to say: "I choose myself." Svetoslava Koleva Judge at the Varna Court of Appeal Member of the Management Board of BAWJ

Article14 September 2026

Becoming a Judge Before the Age of 30: The Path to Success, Difficulties, and Challenges

Author: Veselina Gospodinova, Junior Judge at the Dobrich Regional Court When people hear the word "judge," the image that usually comes to mind is that of a person with decades of life and professional experience. However, donning the black robe before the age of thirty is not merely an exception; it is a journey marked by sleepless nights, sacrifices, immense discipline, and, above all, an unwavering belief in justice. For me, this profession has never been just a career goal. It is a calling. My path to the judiciary began in the academic environment of Varna Free University "Chernorizets Hrabar," from which I graduated with honors in 2020. Yet, graduation was only the first step in a long marathon. There followed the mandatory six-month internship—a transitional period moving from pure theory to a real-world encounter with the law—before I obtained my full legal qualification. It was then that I realized laws are not merely texts in legal codes, but people's lives. The real work, however, began when I won the competition for the position of judicial assistant in the criminal division of the Varna Regional Court. I spent nearly four years at the heart of criminal proceedings. Working there was an invaluable training ground. It taught me how to analyze evidence, draft precise judicial acts, and—most importantly—resolve complex legal cases. Alongside my daily court duties, I sat for national competitions for junior judges every year—competitions requiring not merely preparation, but total dedication. For years, I was just a step away from my goal—a test of willpower that could easily break any young person. Yet, instead of giving up, every unfilled position only fueled my determination to study more, refine the details, and believe that my moment would come. And then came 2025. My successful qualification opened the doors to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in Sofia. Nine months of mandatory initial training followed. The NIJ is not merely a continuation of university studies; it is a place where practicing Bulgarian magistrates teach you how to think like a judge, how to conduct court hearings, and how to uphold your independence. The training was intensive—a round-the-clock process filled with resolving real-life cases, participating in mock trials, and taking exams that tested our knowledge. Today, having officially assumed office as a junior judge at the Dobrich District Court, I reflect on my journey. I managed to achieve my dream before turning thirty. Yet, the moment I donned the judicial robe, personal pride and the joy of success instantly gave way to a different, far more powerful feeling: a profound sense of responsibility. Being a young judge does not mean being granted any leniency regarding society's expectations. On the contrary—the responsibility of fairly resolving a dispute between individuals or determining someone’s fate in criminal proceedings weighs heavily from day one. In our profession, youth is not a disadvantage; it is an asset when combined with drive, uncompromising integrity, and a commitment to continuous learning. For me, professional development does not end in the courtroom. I believe a judge must be an engaged citizen and part of a community that is actively shaping the future of the justice system. That is precisely why it was a tremendous honor for me to be among the founding members of the recently established Association of Women Judges in Bulgaria (AWJB). This organization unites colleagues from across the country with the aim of upholding judicial independence, high ethical standards, and equality in the administration of justice. Being part of building this community at the very beginning of my career as a magistrate gives me added confidence that the voice of the younger generation and mutual support among colleagues are key to a strong and fair justice system.

News04 July 2026

The Association of Women Judges in Bulgaria has been established.

The inaugural meeting of the Association of Women Judges took place on July 4, 2026, in Varna. The non-profit association operating for the public benefit has already been entered into the Register of Associations at the Registry Agency. The founding members are judges from regional, district, appellate, and administrative courts in Varna, Sofia, Veliko Tarnovo, Shumen, Dobrich, Dimitrovgrad, and Svoge. The Association’s objectives include upholding independence, professionalism, and high ethical standards; championing integrity; and protecting the rights of judges. Members will work to boost public confidence in the justice system, address profession-related challenges, and provide support during crises. They will also strive to improve understanding of fundamental human rights and the courts' role in protecting them, while promoting equal access to justice, high-quality adjudication, and fairness. The Association intends to define which modern technologies and artificial intelligence tools are appropriate for use in the judicial process and plans to develop such tools. These goals will be pursued through seminars, training sessions, conferences, and debates, as well as participation in national, European, and international projects. The Association of Women Judges in Bulgaria will collaborate with state institutions, judicial bodies, and non-governmental organizations to foster a culture that respects judicial independence, enhances public legal literacy, and works toward the prevention of crime and substance abuse. Partnerships will be sought with professional organizations sharing similar objectives, law schools, experts in various fields, and the media. Membership is open to all, without regard to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or other affiliations. Any sitting Bulgarian judge who shares the community's values and wishes to contribute to its goals is eligible to join. Plans are underway to draft an operational program and strategy, as well as to develop a bilingual e-platform. The initiative to establish this professional organization came from Angelina Lazarova, a judge at the Varna Appellate Court, who possesses extensive international experience and has participated in events organized by the International Association of Women Judges. Kalina Stancheva, a judge at the Sofia District Court, was elected chairperson of the Bulgarian organization. Her professional interests lie in the fields of judicial ethics and international judicial cooperation. She is actively involved in initiatives related to the training of magistrates and the international exchange of experience, and serves as a lecturer for the National Institute of Justice and the European Judicial Training Network. Last year, at the international association's conference, Judge Stancheva presented a topic regarding cyber-violence and the safety of women judges in the digital environment. Guests at the inaugural meeting included the Regional Governor of Varna, Mario Smarkov, and the President of the Varna Appellate Court, Marin Marinov, while representatives of the international association joined the event online. Address by Judge Svetoslava Koleva.docx