on the basis of an effective contract. Commonly it is landlords that initiate litigation, with tenants typically appearing in court as respondents.
The length of proceedings prior to the adoption of the faster procedure in 1999 often dissuaded landlords from litigating. The new procedure now provides speedier remedy and is likely to increase case law.
The state fee for filing a claim based on a tenancy contract is a standard fee, applicable to material claims, at the amount of 4 % of the claimed interest. Where the claim pertains to the continuation or termination of a tenancy contract, the basis for calculating the fee is the amount of rent payable per year. It should be noted that article 63 of the Civil Procedural Code allows the courts to waive state fees and expenses relating to proceedings for persons in particularly difficult financial conditions. For this purpose the person should present before the president of the court a certificate regarding his/her material status, to be issued by the municipal (regional) people's council or mayor's office, affirming that he/she does not possess sufficient means to pay fees and costs.
The parties of course are free to choose to defend themselves without seeking the assistance of a qualified lawyer, nor is the court obliged to appoint a legal consultant for the purpose of the proceedings ex officio, as is the case in criminal proceedings. A legal adviser's fees may vary significantly. . Whilst the expenses relating to the proceedings and the legal advisers’ honoraries may have a potentially negative effect upon parties considering whether or not litigate, yet they are virtually never a serious factor in dissuading an aggrieved party not to bring proceedings.
The Bulgarian law does not contain provisions relating to landlord and tenant associations. To the best of my knowledge such associations do not exist or if they exist they are not influential and have little, if any, social significance. The Civil Procedural Code does not provide for the possibility for tenants’ or landlords’ associations to appear in the proceedings assisting one or other party.
The execution of tenancy law decisions by the courts is subject to the general rules of execution provided for in the Civil Procedural Code.
Set 1: Conclusion of the Contract
Introductory notes
The conclusion of tenancy contracts is regulated by the rules on the conclusion of contracts set out in the general part of the LCO. According to these rules, the conclusion of a contract requires one of the parties to have made an offer and the other party to have accepted it. However, not every statement or proposal for the conclusion of a contract amounts to an offer. In order to be valid and binding upon the party as an offer, the statement made should meet several requirements:
(i)it should clearly express a party’s intention to be bound by the offer;
(ii)it should clearly demonstrate a party’s serious intention to conclude a contract – animus contrahendi obligationis ;
(iii)it should be complete.
The serious intention of the party to conclude a contract should be deduced by construing the statement made. In order to be deemed complete the offer should contain all essential terms of the contemplated contract. With regard to the tenancy contract these are: (i) identification of the rented property and (ii) stipulation of the rent.
The offer is deemed complete when the contract can be concluded by mere acceptance by the other party i.e. the contract can be fulfilled without any further negotiations, counter-offers or additional stipulations. It should be noted that the requirements needed to establish a valid offer are not explicitly set out in law. Rather they have been elaborated firstly by legal doctrine, and subsequently adopted by the courts.
The law does not require any particular form for the offer to be valid. For instance, oral offers are valid and binding.
Pursuant to article 13 of the LCO an offeror is bound by the offer until the expiration of the time period either specified therein or usually required under the specific circumstances for the acceptance to reach the addressee. However, the offer can be withdrawn, provided that the withdrawal reaches the addressee earlier or at the same time when the offer reaches him. In such a case no obligations arise for the offeror. Provided that no time period for acceptance has been specified, an offer made to a person present loses its effect if it is not accepted immediately, whereas an offer made to a person who is not present loses its effect after the expiration of a period of time normally needed for the acceptance to reach the offeror.
The rules with regard to “acceptance” are equally scant. Similarly, they have been developed in the legal doctrine in accordance with the classical interpretation of contract as a function of the autonomy of the parties’ will.36 Similar to the requirements with regard to the “offer”, the “acceptance” should also demonstrate the addressee’s intention to conclude the contract – animus contrahendi obligtionis. The “acceptance” should be addressed only to the offeror. According to the legal doctrine the “acceptance” should be unconditional and should be entirely in response to the offer. Any deviation from the “offer”, would render the “acceptance’ merely a counter-offer for a new contractual agreement.
Unless explicitly demanded by the offeror, no particular form is required for the validity of the acceptance. If the offer has prescribed a period for acceptance, acceptance after the expiry of the term does not oblige the offeror. The rules on withdrawal are the same as those applicable to the withdrawal of an offer. Silence or inactivity does not imply acceptance. The contract is deemed to be concluded as of the moment the acceptance reaches the offeror.
The law does not contain provisions relating to an offer made to an indefinite number of persons or to unspecified persons. Nevertheless, it is undisputable that an offer could be validly made to a non-specified addressee. Such offers should clearly show
36 See article 150 of the German Civil Code; see Kozhuharov, “The Law of Obligations, General Part. Book 1”, edited by Gerdzhikov, O., Sofi-R, 1992, at p. 44.