Useful

Everyone has encountered the problems of legalizing and certifying documents from abroad. It is most natural to turn to the relevant institution for which the document is intended and to ask if an apostille is needed.

There are several ways in which a document from abroad can be valid and usable in Bulgaria. In practice, these methods are misunderstood and often confused with each other. It is these differences that lead to the controversial interpretation by the state institutions of valid legalization.

This, in turn, has an impact on their apostille requirements as a form of document authentication from different countries. Very often these rules are applied unlawfully and unlawfully.

The practice of the Bulgarian institutions has made it clear that when the document is provided with an apostille, this makes it valid, such as the notary’s certification of the Bulgarian notary. Reasons for this conclusion are given by the increasing demands for the submission of documents from abroad with apostilles, even when there is no such legal requirement.

In which cases apostille authentication is required.

The Convention on the Elimination of the Requirement for Legalization of Foreign Public Acts, signed at The Hague on 5 October 1961, entered into force for Bulgaria on 30 April 2001. The purpose of the Convention is to establish a single means of verifying the validity and authenticity of documents from abroad By affixing on them a special designation (Apostille) or an appendix thereto.

Apostille is the special endorsement of the country in which the document was issued. Apostille-supplied documents do not require additional certification and legalization, both in the country in which they are issued and in all the Parties to the Convention for which they are intended. Putting an apostille on the foreign document is a form of legalization.

After the apostille supply, the documents are subject to a formal procedure by the consular department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which certifies the signature of the sworn translator. This is the authentication of the translation. In these cases, the MFA certification is not legalization, as it is often called even licensed agencies, thus adding further confusion and ambiguity.

It is necessary to distinguish from the so-called Legalization as one of the means of authenticating documents from abroad and apostille certification. Legalization of documents from other countries is necessary when no simplified procedures are applied to these countries – they have no bilateral legal assistance agreements signed with Bulgaria or are not party to

The 1961 Convention on the Abolition of the Requirement for Legalization of Foreign Public Acts
For facilitation of the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, lists of States Parties to the Hague Convention and those with which Bulgaria has legal aid contracts have been published. In this way, any interested person can make the necessary reference.

Cases in which the apostille requirement is dropped

It is possible, however, between Bulgaria and the State from which the document was issued to have a bilateral legal aid contract.

Such a contract usually provides for a more relaxed regime than the Convention and leads to the abolition of the apostille certification requirement. It is only necessary for the document to be provided with an administrative seal by a court or other state office or a notary stamp.

This document is also subject to certification by the MFA only of the signature of the sworn translator, certifying the correctness of the translation in Bulgarian.

The idea of the Hague Convention, as well as international legal assistance treaties, is to maximize international document circulation. Bulgarian institutions are increasingly ignoring this relaxed regime and necessarily require apostille of documents, although it is not necessary.

The Hague Convention provides that where a treaty, convention or agreement containing provisions subjecting the signature, seal, or mark to certain formal procedures exists between two or more Contracting States, this Convention repeals them where they are more stringent Of the ones provided in it.

By the contrary, once we have a more relaxed regime, written in a bilateral agreement between Bulgaria and another country, the Convention does not repeal it and it is precisely the one that applies. The relieved regime unambiguously excludes the need to supply the apostille document.

For this reason, the requirement to place it will not be lawful because it contradicts an international treaty duly ratified, promulgated and enforced for Bulgaria, and such privileges prevail over our domestic law.

The unlawful requirement leads to a number of unfavorable consequences

In many cases, when an apostille is illegally required on the documents, it is a large-scale project of great interest. This leads to a significant prolongation of the deadlines procedures. The significant additional financial costs of the persons concerned and the unnecessary administrative burden are irrelevant.

In the course of these procedures, the requirement for apostille of documents already submitted may result in omissions within statutory deadlines. This is because the supply of apostille provides for the issuance of a new original document, which goes all the way from foreign stamps, return of the document to Bulgaria, translation by a sworn translator and subsequent certification of his signature by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The responsibility of the administration

It is important to bear in mind the State and Municipalities Liability Act, which provides that the State and the municipalities are liable for damages caused to citizens and legal persons by unlawful acts, actions or omissions by their authorities and officials in connection with, or in connection with, administrative activity.

For example, if, in the course of a licensing or registration procedure, officials refuse to do so because of an unlawful apostille requirement, those concerned may seek legal protection. The state and municipalities owe indemnification to all property and non-pecuniary damage that is the direct and immediate consequence of the disability, whether caused by the official.

Any interested party may bring an action for damages against the authorities whose unlawful acts, actions or omissions have suffered harm.

On the other hand, the officials themselves are liable to the state for the damages paid by it to injured citizens and legal entities. Depending on the violation, their liability is carried out under the conditions and by the order provided by the Labor Code, the Civil Servant Act or any other law or decree.

This underestimated legal framework should be more commonly used in the unequal battle with the administration. Otherwise, even clear reliefs in international document turnover are making sense of aggravation.

* Diana Karadjova, Law Firm “Tocheva and Mandadjieva” – source newspaper “Capital”