Дела-шамари (SLAPP): новите правила за защита в ГПК

Overview of the new legal framework in the Civil Procedure Code (promulgated in State Gazette No. 92 of 2026)

Imagine a journalist publishing an investigation into an important matter of public interest, only to face a claim for enormous damages shortly afterwards. For years, there has been a trend, both in the public sphere and in courtrooms, of influential public figures, business entities or politicians bringing civil proceedings involving substantial claims against investigative journalists, civic activists, independent media and ordinary citizens. It is precisely such situations that are associated with so-called “SLAPP lawsuits”.

The amendments to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) discussed in this article aim to provide more effective protection for people and organisations participating in public debate. What are these lawsuits, and what means of protection does the new framework provide?

What are “SLAPP lawsuits”?

The term SLAPP comes from the English Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. In Bulgaria, they are known as “slap lawsuits”.

These are generally claims against journalists, media outlets, civil society organisations, activists or other persons who raise matters of public interest. In such proceedings, the aim may be less to protect a genuinely infringed right than to intimidate, financially exhaust or deter critical publications and statements.

Until now, Bulgarian procedural law primarily relied on the general prohibition of abuse of procedural rights under Article 3 of the CPC and the traditional rules on the allocation of costs under Article 78 of the CPC to counter such lawsuits. However, these traditional tools often forced defendants to go through lengthy, costly and exhausting court battles at three instances merely to prove that the claim was unfounded.

The Act Amending and Supplementing the Civil Procedure Code , promulgated in State Gazette No. 92 of 2026, fundamentally changes this situation.

Why are new rules being introduced?

The amendments are related to Directive (EU) 2024/1069, which provides protection against manifestly unfounded claims and abusive court proceedings connected with public participation.

According to the legislative text under consideration, the Bulgarian approach covers not only disputes with a cross-border element but also cases in which both parties are in Bulgaria. The reform has thus become a genuine shield for freedom of expression within Bulgaria.

Key concepts: “Public participation” and “Matter of public interest”

For the special protection regime to apply, the case must arise from the exercise of so-called public participation.This includes statements and activities connected with freedom of expression and information, artistic and scientific freedom, and the right of assembly and association. Preparatory journalistic and research activities also fall within its scope.

Matters of public interest may include, for example, investigations into corruption, environmental protection, public health and safety, violations of fundamental rights or the actions of public figures.

Accordingly, the protection may also apply to citizens and organisations participating in public discussion.

Key protective measures under the new Chapter 33b of the CPC

The introduction of the new Chapter Thirty-Three “b” in the CPC (Articles 388c–388h) provides specific procedural means of protection against abuse:

Protective measure	How does it work in practice?
Early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims	The defendant may request, as early as in the response to the statement of claim, that the court terminate the proceedings and dismiss the claim as manifestly unfounded. The court is required to consider the request promptly, before lengthy proceedings on the merits take place.
Security for costs (Article 394a CPC)	The court may require the claimant to provide monetary security to cover the defendant’s future court costs and legal fees. This ensures that, if the claimant loses, the defendant will not be left empty-handed after an expensive defence.
Restricting preliminary attachments and injunctions	A classic tactic in SLAPP lawsuits was to freeze the accounts of a media outlet or activist through interim measures securing the claim before the case was decided. The new framework imposes strict barriers to granting interim protective measures where conclusive written evidence is lacking.
Support from NGOs and professional associations	Human rights organisations, media associations and trade unions may now intervene in the proceedings with opinions and evidence in support of the defendant, without assuming the risk of financial burdens.

How does the court determine whether a lawsuit is a “SLAPP”?

Not every claim against a journalist or activist constitutes abuse. Everyone has the right to protect their reputation and legitimate interests through the courts. The court must therefore assess not only the subject matter of the dispute but also the circumstances surrounding the bringing of the claim.

Factors that may be taken into account include:

an imbalance of power between the parties;
the unfounded, disproportionate or excessive nature of the claim or part of it, including the amount claimed, in relation to the alleged infringement of the claimant’s rights and legitimate interests;
multiple proceedings or coordinated legal actions initiated by the claimant or related parties concerning similar matters 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 proceedings, choosing a court, or discontinuing proceedings at a later stage, with the aim of creating difficulties for the defendant’s procedural defence or causing additional costs;
deliberately directing the claim against natural persons rather than the legal entity responsible for the actions or statements identified in the statement of claim;
actions damaging the defendant’s reputation or disclosing details of the defendant’s private life;
other actions by the claimant directed against the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information on matters of public interest, freedom of the arts and sciences, or freedom of assembly and association on matters of public interest.

All these circumstances are established on the basis of the evidence collected in the case, and the court may collect and examine evidence relating to them on its own initiative.

What happens if the lawsuit is brought abroad?

A common practice among international corporations or foreign entities is to pursue aggressive litigation in countries outside the EU with a view to subsequent enforcement against Bulgarian citizens. The amendments to the Private International Law Code (PILC) expressly empower Bulgarian courts to refuse recognition and enforcement of judgments from third countriesif they are classified as SLAPP lawsuits. Moreover, the affected Bulgarian person has the right to bring a claim before a Bulgarian court for compensation for all damage and costs incurred abroad.

Are other measures also provided for?

To ensure the practical effectiveness of the law, accompanying safeguards were adopted in the Bar Act and the Judiciary Act:

Free legal aid: Access to specialised legal aid is provided for vulnerable individuals – freelance journalists and local activists;
Public disclosure of decisions: Влезлите в сила актове, с които се установява дело-шамар, подлежат на специално публично оповестяване в Единния портал за електронно правосъдие;
Statistical monitoring: The Supreme Judicial Council is obliged to collect and publish annual aggregate statistics on the number and progress of SLAPP proceedings in the country.

What do the changes mean in practice?

The principal aim of the new rules is to identify and limit abuse of court proceedings as early as possible. This means that journalists, activists and citizens will not, in every case, be forced to conduct lengthy proceedings solely to prove that a claim against them is manifestly unfounded.

At the same time, the right of every claimant acting in good faith to seek judicial protection remains important. The balance lies between that right and the need to prevent the courts from being used as a tool to intimidate and silence positions of public significance.

How can KGK Law Firm assist you?

The new amendments to the CPC represent a significant change in the procedure for hearing cases related to the defendant’s public activities. The right to protection and access to court remain guaranteed for every claimant acting in good faith whose honour and dignity have genuinely been harmed. At the same time, the amendments aim to prevent the courtroom from becoming a tool of economic repression and institutional pressure against society’s critical voices.

The KGK Law Firm team can assist you with a legal analysis of your specific case, preparation of a litigation strategy and representation in court proceedings. Contact us for a consultation.