Member spotlight: Q&A between the European Regional Forum and Angel A Ganev

ERF (IBA European Regional Forum): Please state your legal qualifications, and the jurisdiction(s) in which you practice.

AAG (Angel A Ganev): I hold an LL.M. in Law from Sofia University and an LL.M. in Corporate and Commercial Law from Queen Mary, University of London.

I also obtained a Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration from the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary, University of London, and I am currently enrolled in the ICC Advanced Arbitration Academy in Eastern Europe. I am admitted to practice law in Bulgaria as a member of the Sofia Bar Association and currently serve as a Partner and Head of the Dispute Resolution, Insolvency & Restructuring Practice at Djingov, Gouginski, Kyutchukov & Velichkov, in Sofia, Bulgaria.

ERF: Do you have a specialty practice area(s)?

AAG: Yes. My practice focuses on international and domestic arbitration, commercial litigation, insolvency and restructuring, competition law, international trade law, and cross-border asset recovery.

I have served as co-arbitrator, sole arbitrator, and presiding arbitrator in proceedings under the ICC, VIAC, and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, as well as under the rules of a domestic arbitral institution in Bulgaria. I have represented clients in over 100 arbitration cases, both institutional and ad hoc.

ERF: What trends do you see shaping your practice area(s) in the next three years?

AAG: I expect several important developments:

• A stronger emphasis on transparency and accountability in arbitral proceedings, reflected in reforms such as Bulgaria’s 2025 Arbitration Act.
• Increasing digitalisation and the use of technology, from online hearings and AI-assisted document review to electronic case management systems, which will become a standard feature in institutional arbitration.
• Expansion of arbitration into new sectors and subject matters: technology, data protection, renewable energy projects, and ESG-related disputes are likely to generate more arbitration cases.
• More cross-border enforcement battles, as assets are increasingly held through complex international structures.
• At the same time, in the specific context of Bulgaria, I anticipate a gradual withdrawal of foreign arbitral institutions and ad hoc arbitrations from selecting Bulgaria as a seat, due to restrictive registration requirements and loss of confidentiality.
• Parties may also face delays in the enforcement of arbitral awards rendered with Bulgaria as the seat, particularly where registration formalities are not promptly fulfilled or where the Supreme Court of Cassation exercises its expanded powers to suspend enforcement without requiring security.
• Finally, for arbitrations seated in Bulgaria, the possibility of annulling awards years after issuance – based on newly discovered facts such as fraud or falsified evidence – will create ongoing legal uncertainty that undermines the principle of finality in arbitration.

ERF: What makes the recent changes to the Bulgarian Arbitration Act significant?

AAG: The 2025 reform represents the most significant overhaul of Bulgaria’s arbitration framework since 2017. Key features include:

• Establishment of a mandatory Register of Arbitrations, overseen by the Ministry of Justice, with awards rendered outside the Register deemed null and void.
• Restrictions on ad hoc arbitration, now allowed only in international commercial disputes.
• New grounds for challenging awards, including contradiction with public policy (reinstated) and fraud or falsified evidence.
• Stricter requirements for arbitrators and detailed rules on service of documents.
• Removal of burdensome formalities in the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, aligning Bulgaria more closely with the New York Convention. These changes aim to restore trust in arbitration following past abuses, but they have also sparked debate over their compatibility with core principles of party autonomy and confidentiality.

ERF: Will this reform affect the practice of international arbitration in Bulgaria/your practice?

AAG: The reform has a dual effect on international arbitration:

• Positive: It simplifies the enforcement of foreign awards by eliminating excessive formalities, reinstates 'public policy' as a ground for setting aside awards, and strengthens safeguards for parties. These changes may enhance Bulgaria’s credibility among international users.
• Negative: Several provisions raise serious concerns:
  • The Supreme Court of Cassation may now stay the enforcement of an arbitral award even without requiring security, provided there is ‘compelling written evidence’ of grounds for annulment. This discretionary standard deviates from international best practice, creates unpredictability, and may encourage tactical delays in enforcement.
  • The law requires mandatory registration of all arbitration proceedings seated in Bulgaria. This applies not only to domestic arbitrations but also to all ad hoc arbitrations and to all cases administered by foreign arbitral institutions provided the seat is in Bulgaria. The registration must include: the names and addresses of the parties, the names and professional backgrounds of the arbitrators, the administering institution (if applicable), key procedural documents (request for arbitration, reply, and hearing notices), and the arbitral award itself. The presiding arbitrator is responsible for registration within seven days of each relevant event.
  • Failure to register renders the award null and void. This means that even inadvertent administrative omissions – particularly by foreign institutions unfamiliar with Bulgarian requirements – could jeopardise the validity and enforceability of awards.
  • The registration system also undermines confidentiality and party autonomy: while certain data – such as the names of institutions and arbitrators – is publicly available, all other materials are accessible to the Ministry of Justice, its Inspectorate, and state courts. The Minister of Justice is also empowered to inspect files and even remove institutions from the Register, raising concerns about potential executive interference in arbitration.
  • Finally, since awards cannot be issued until registration is complete, the system may lead to practical delays – especially if the Register is not fully operational in time. This creates uncertainty and could discourage international parties from choosing Bulgaria as the seat of arbitration. For my practice, this means advising international clients not only on substantive disputes, but also on compliance with the new procedural regime. It also heightens the importance of forum selection strategy – whether to continue seating cases in Bulgaria or to consider alternative jurisdictions.

ERF: How has being an IBA Arbitration Committee member enhanced your practice?

AAG: Being an active member of the IBA Arbitration Committee has significantly enriched my practice. It has provided access to a global network of leading practitioners, exposure to cutting-edge developments in arbitral procedure, and opportunities to engage in policy discussions on key issues such as diversity, efficiency, and enforcement trends. This involvement enables me to anticipate global shifts and apply international best practices to cases involving Bulgarian parties or proceedings seated in Bulgaria. It has directly benefited my clients by ensuring that my approach aligns with the highest standards of the international arbitration community.