The right to legal defense and assistance
Every citizen has a right to protection where their rights or legitimate interests are violated or threatened, and may appear with counsel before state institutions under Article 56 of the Bulgarian Constitution. Under Article 24(1), item 3, of the Bar Act, legal practice includes representation and protection before judicial and administrative authorities and in dealings with individuals and legal entities.
Effective access to counsel and attorney–client confidentiality receive constitutional and Convention protection. Procedural arrangements and restrictions must be assessed under the applicable law, taking account of the essence of the right, necessity, proportionality, and adequate safeguards. Decisions on different legal issues cannot be treated as a blanket prohibition on regulating legal practice.
Case law and the issues decided
- Constitutional Court Decision No. 15 of September 28, 1993, case No. 17/1993 and Decision No. 3 of May 17, 1994, case No. 1/1994 address the significance and general scope of the constitutional right to protection.
- Constitutional Court Order No. 1 of March 30, 2021, case No. 2/2021 concerns admissibility of a request relating to anti-money-laundering legislation; it is not a merits judgment declaring the relevant duties unconstitutional.
- Constitutional Court Decision No. 6 of June 5, 2025, case No. 28/2024 declares Article 120(2) of the Social Insurance Code unconstitutional concerning attorney-fee costs on administrative appeal; it does not decide every issue of access to counsel.
- Supreme Administrative Court Decision No. 2735 of March 18, 2025, administrative case No. 8239/2024, Eighth Division, upheld by Decision No. 7943 of July 16, 2025, administrative case No. 4496/2025, a five-judge panel of the First College, annuls Article 64(3) of the implementing regulations of the Measures Against Money Laundering Act concerning the declaration on applying the uniform internal rules. These decisions do not abolish all duties under that Act or exempt every activity performed by an attorney.
- Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, May 22, 2008, application No. 65755/01 and Petri Sallinen and Others v. Finland, September 27, 2005, application No. 50882/99 concern professional confidentiality and the statutory and procedural safeguards required for searches and seizures; violations of Article 8 were found on the particular facts.
- Michaud v. France, December 6, 2012, application No. 12323/11 found no violation of Article 8. The Court considered the specific French regime proportionate because of its limited scope, exceptions protecting defense work and legal advice, and the Bar chairman’s intermediary role in reporting suspicions. It does not establish an absolute bar to anti-money-laundering duties for attorneys.
Legal basis: Articles 24, 33–34 and 45 of the Bar Act.