The main stages in administrative-penal proceedings are the drafting of a Statement for establishing of administrative violation (“SEAV”) and the issuance of a Penal Decree (PD). The SEAV records the commission of a violation and describes the surrounding circumstances—who, when, and how violated the relevant legal provision. The PD, in turn, is the act by which the competent authority imposes the administrative sanction, such as a fine. As a general rule, the obligation to pay the imposed fine arises once the PD enters into force—either the PD has not been appealed or the appeal has been finally rejected.
However, when can the fine actually be paid? What is the effect under the Administrative Violations and Sanctions Act (“AVSA”) of the different payment options?
This question is of great importance, as it allows an individual to understand their rights and make an informed decision:
- whether to pay a potential fine already upon the establishment of a violation by the SEAV, before the PD is issued;
- whether to pay the imposed fine after receiving the PD and/or
- whether to appeal the PD and, if appealing, still proceed to pay the fine.
The article examines the general procedure under the AVSA and its main stages—SEAV and PD—without claiming to exhaust all possible scenarios for assessment. For shortness of the text, the article refers to the fine imposed on individuals, but the same rules apply to the pecuniary sanction imposed on legal entities.
1. Payment of the fine by the Individual in the period between the service of the SAEV and before the issuance of the PD
The administrative-penal proceedings begin with the issuance of the SAEV, i.e. with the establishment of a committed violation described in the mandatory specifics prescribed by the AVSA. The SAEV is served on the individual, after which the file is forwarded to the sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority must issue a decision within 1 (one) month.
Within this one-month period, and more precisely within 14 days — counted for the sanctioning authority from the receipt of the file, and for the individual from the service of the SAEV — either party may submit a proposal for conclusion of a settlement agreement. For more details on the settlement agreement, see our article Settlement Agreements in the Administrative Penal Proceeding.
The signed settlement agreement shall contain the type and amount of the imposed administrative sanction, including the fine, if the administrative sanction is a fine. The fine under the settlement agreement is in the amount of:
- 70% of the minimum or of the fixed amount prescribed for the committed violation, or
- no more than 70% of half of the maximum amount, when no minimum is provided by law.
When a fine is imposed under the settlement agreement, the violator agrees to pay the amount of the fine within 14 days from the conclusion of the agreement. Upon payment of the fine, the agreement enters into force and has the same legal effect as an enforceable PD.
If the fine is not paid within the term, the sanctioning authority issues a reasoned ruling declaring that no settlement agreement has been reached. This ruling is not subject to appeal, and the authority then proceeds to issue a PD. The previously signed settlement agreement shall not be used by the sanctioning authority as an admission of guilt by the individual. The individual still has the right to appeal the issued PD.
2. Payment of the fine by the individual after the service of the PD
If no settlement agreement has been concluded, or if the fine under a signed agreement has not been paid within the term, the sanctioning authority issues a PD.
If the individual does not want to appeal the part concerning the imposed fine, the individual may pay it within 14 days from the service of the PD. The payable amount in that case is 80 % of the imposed fine, unless a special law provides for a reduced amount. According to the AVSA the PD enters into force, in the part concerning the imposed fine, as of the date of payment. If the individual has appealed the PD and has paid the fine within the above-mentioned period, the proceedings regarding the appeal in that part are terminated — Article 79b, para. 2 of the AVSA.
Of course, the individual may also pay the fine after this period; however, in such a case, the payable amount will be the full imposed fine, not 80 % of it. Interest will accrue, and additional expenses related to the enforcement of payment may also become due.
The question that arises is: Can an individual appeal the PD, including the part imposing the fine, if the fine has already been paid? The AVSA gives a clear answer: No. This appears to be clear according to Article 79b, para. 2 of the AVSA.
However, the matter may not be so straightforward. At the request of the Administrative Court – Sofia City (ACSC), a Constitutional Case No. 7/2025 has been initiated before the Constitutional Court (CC).
The reason stems from a case before the ACSC, where an individual was fined under a PD, and the bus operated by that individual was forcibly suspended from operation by order of the authorities. The transport company paid the fine in order for the bus to be released.
The individual then appealed the PD, unaware that the fine had already been paid. The court of first instance dismissed the appeal on the grounds that, since the fine had been paid, the individual no longer had the right to appeal. The ACSC is acting as the second instance in the case.
In its request and additional request, the ACSC argues that Article 79b, para. 2 of the AVSA contradicts several provisions of the Constitution, namely:
- the requirement that Bulgaria shall be a state governed by the rule of law – the provision was adopted without any accompanying reasoning, with the sole stated purpose of accelerating the collection of sanctions and fines imposed by administrative acts that have entered into force, through granting discounts to individuals who pay within the appeal period; this undermines the predictability of legal regulation, destabilizes legal certainty, and infringes upon the right to property of motor vehicle owners as well as the full exercise of that right;
- the citizens’ right to legal protection – the payment of a fine is treated as a waiver of the right to appeal, even when such payment is made under coercion, such as the imposition of a coercive administrative measure against the owner of the vehicle; if the individual objects to the imposed sanction, judicial protection should not be denied;
- the right of citizens and legal entities to appeal all administrative acts affecting them, except those explicitly provided otherwise by law – the imposition of administrative sanctions constitutes penal proceedings and should therefore be interpreted in light of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights; payment of a fine is not a waiver of the right to appeal — such payment may be motivated by other considerations, as in the present case, and not by an unwillingness to the act to be appealed; moreover, the legal exception is neither clear nor precisely formulated, and lacks a well-defined criterion justifying its necessity;
- the right of citizens freely to choose their profession and place of work – the provision creates a risk of administrative arbitrariness;
- the principle of justice and legal equality of citizens.
These circumstances create the conditions for potential state liability for damages caused by acts that contravene the Constitution.
The request of the ACSC has been supported as well-founded by the Association of Prosecutors in Bulgaria, the Acting Prosecutor General, the Supreme Court of Cassation, the Bulgarian Judges Association, and the Union of Jurists in Bulgaria.
The Council of Ministers, the Minister of Interior, and the Minister of Justice maintain that there is no contradiction with the Constitution, and that the ACSC’s request is unfounded. Some of the arguments supporting this position are as follows:
- by paying the fine, the individual acknowledges both the established violation and the imposed sanction;
- Article 79b, paragraph 2 of the AVSA constitutes an unconditional waiver by the competent authority to enforce the sanction — upon payment of the reduced amount of 80%, the sanction is deemed fully executed, and the remaining 20% of the fine or pecuniary sanction cannot be collected under any circumstances;
- this waiver is partial — the authority waives collection only of part of its receivable (20% of the fine or pecuniary sanction), and the waiver concerns solely the pecuniary sanction, not any other administrative sanctions imposed by the PD;
- the individual’s choice to take advantage of the legal option created by the law binds the sanctioning authority, since the latter is obliged to accept payment of the reduced amount;
- Article 79a, para. 1 of the AVSA creates a privilege for the individual to pay a lower amount of the fine or pecuniary sanction in exchange for waiving judicial review of the PD in that part;
- the individual has the legal possibility to appeal the PD in its entirety — there is no legal coercion compelling the individual to exercise one right over the other;
- the provision itself is not imperative but rather establishes a legal option for the sanctioned individual to acknowledge the violation and bear a lighter punishment than that provided by law; payment of the reduced fine thus serves as a form of financial relief for the offender;
- the PD remains subject to appeal in all its other parts.
The issue concerning the legal effect of paying a fine (or pecuniary sanction) after the service of a PD, and whether such payment precludes the right to a full appeal of the PD, is currently being interpreted inconsistently by the courts. The future decision of the Constitutional Court will therefore provide an opportunity for this question to receive a final and uniform resolution, in the spirit of the Constitution.
The present article is for information purposes only. It is not a (binding) legal advice. For a thorough understanding of the subjects covered and prior acting on any issue discussed we kindly recommend Readers consult Ilieva, Voutcheva & Co. Law Firm attorneys at law.
