1. Introduction. – 2. The Concept of Mandatory Mediation. – 3. Mandatory Mediation in the European Union Context. – 4. Bulgaria and the Constitutional Court as a Positive Legislator in the Field of Mediation. – 5. The Nature of the Newly Adopted Model of Judicial Mediation in Bulgaria after the Constitutional Court’s Decision of 1 July 2024. – 6. Conclusions and Recommendations.
Background: Bulgaria has had a statutory mediation framework for over two decades, yet mediation remains underused compared with court adjudication. In the context of judicial reform and caseload reduction, Bulgaria adopted rules in 2023 that introduced mandatory judicial mediation pursuant to which parties to pending court proceedings are required to attend a free-of-charge mediation information session of up to three hours before the first open hearing. The provision was scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2024. On that date, however, the Bulgarian Constitutional Court (Decision No. 11 of 1 July 2024, Constitutional Case No. 11/2024) declared the core provisions of the reform unconstitutional, reviving the question of how far the legislature can require a mediation step without impairing access to justice. In July 2025, Bulgaria adopted a revised model centred on mandatory participation in a mediation information meeting during pending proceedings for specified categories of disputes subject to additional referral by judges. This article analyses the new model, positions it within European approaches, and identifies design requirements for legislation that can stimulate mediation uptake without creating procedural barriers.
Method: The article employs doctrinal and comparative legal analysis. It examines the 2025 amendments to the Bulgarian Civil Procedure Code and the Mediation Act, introducing mandatory participation in a mediation information meeting, and considers them in light of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court’s reasoning on proportionality and effective access to court. It situates Bulgaria’s approach within European standards, particularly the interpretation of mandatory ADR/mediation models by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the mandatory mediation models applicable in Italy, Lithuania, Spain, Greece, and Cyprus. The analysis also draws on international discussions on the design features of effective mandatory mediation models, including incentives, costs, procedural safeguards, and protections in cases involving violence or risks to children, to offer suggestions regarding the features an effective mandatory mediation approach should adopt.
Results and Conclusions: The 2025 Bulgarian mandatory mediation model is best characterised as a hybrid: it combines a legislatively defined set of case types with broad judicial discretion and multiple statutory exceptions. It compels attendance at an information meeting (not mediation itself), does not require settlement, does not automatically stay the court case, and limits adverse costs consequences to a modest fee, all features aimed at meeting constitutional proportionality requirements. At the same time, its effectiveness will depend on implementation choices (funding, quality control of mediators, clear referral criteria, and workable incentives). The Bulgarian trajectory confirms the broader European trend: mandatory or semi-mandatory mediation mechanisms can be compatible with the right to effective judicial protection, but only when designed to avoid turning ADR into a procedural barrier and when safeguards for vulnerable parties are robust. The ultimate conclusion is that it may be advisable to adopt uniform, mandatory mediation procedures that apply across the EU and form the backbone of an efficient mediation ecosystem across the Union that truly promotes out-of-court dispute settlement.