Action and reaction between EU law and bulgarian law in the application of Brussels I Recast Regulation

Abstract

Bulgaria is participating at the judicial cooperation in civil matters with cross-border implications entailed currently in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for more than 10 years now. One of the most important instruments in this field is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (so called Brussels I Recast Regulation). This paper focuses on two aspects connected with the ratio personae of Brussels I Recast Regulation. The first one is devoted to the application of Brussels I Recast Regulation towards natural persons, depending to large extend on their domicile in an EU Member State. Unfortunately there is no definition of the “domicile” of natural persons contained in Brussels I Recast Regulation. This question is left to the Member States as envisaged in Article 62. At the same time there are some guidelines that can be drawn indirectly from the Regulation and from the previous instruments on the same matter. The Bulgarian case law determining the domicile of a natural persons under the Bulgarian standards but in sense of the Brussels I Recast Regulation is controversial. There are three different views of the Bulgarian Court of Cassation in this regard. This ambivalent understanding of the domicile creates uncertainty and unpredictability. This paper suggests way out of this conflicting situation proposing inter alia a possible request for preliminary ruling of ECJ. The second aspect is devoted to the possibility of lodging a claim against a third party in an action on a warranty or guarantee or in any other third-party proceedings in the court of the domicile of the main defendant in situations when the court is seized with the original proceedings. The legal frame is established in Article 8, point 2 of Brussels I Recast Regulation. The problem lies in a Bulgarian rule contained in Article 219, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedural Code forbidding participation of a third party in main proceedings if this third party does not have permanent address in Bulgaria or lives abroad. This paper argues that the EU law prevails and allows accesses to the Bulgarian courts also in cases concerning third parties from EU Member States. The desired goal is overriding of a standing case law of the Bulgarian courts limiting the right of proceeding against third parties in cross-border cases.

References:

Museva, Boryana. Iz labirinta na mezhdunarodnata kompetentnost po grazhdanski i targovski dela. Yuridicheski svyat, 2006, No 2, 41–91.

Natov, Nikolay, Museva, Boryana, Andreeva, Yasmina, Yordanski, Stanislav, Tsenova, Teodora, Sarbinova, Dafina, Pandov, Vasil, Yanakiev, Zahari, Bankov, Nikolay, Krumov, Tsvetan. Reglamentat „Bryuksel І“. Komentar. Sofia: Siela, 2012. 624 s.

Natov, Nikolay, Museva, Boryana, Pandov, Vasil, Tsenova, Teodora, Sarbinova, Dafina, Yordanski, Stanislav, Tsanev, Emil, Stankov, Mihail. Reglamentat Bryuksel ІІA. Komentar. Sofia: Siela, 2014. 488 s.

Popova, Valentina. Aktualni problemi na evropeyskia grazhdanski protses i chast VІІ na GPK. Sofia: Siela, 2011. 236 s.

Stalev, Zhivko, Mingova, Anelia, Stamboliev, Ognyan, Popova, Valentina, Ivanova, Ruzha. Balgarsko grazhdansko protsesualno pravo. 9. prerab. i dop. izd. Sofia: Siela, 2012. 1320 s.

Zlatareva, Margarita. Mezhdunaroden grazhdanski protses. Sofia: Siela, 2010. 300 s. (Bibliogr.: 297–298).

Jenard, Paul. Bericht über dem Übereinkommen über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Vollstreckung gerichtlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil-und Handelssachen. OВ. C 59/1.