Amendments to the Administrative Proceedings

/in /by
Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/seelegal/public_html/wp-content/plugins/team-showcase/tshowcase.php on line 3993
Admin Proceedings

Amendments to the Administrative Proceedings

August 2025

Meglena Konstantinova, Senior Associate

BOYANOV & Co.

On August 1, 2025, amendments and supplements to the Administrative Procedure Code (the “APC“) were promulgated (SG No. 63/2025). These amendments affect various aspects of the administrative process, and the legislator has established different deadlines for their implementation. Pending proceedings before the administrative body or court will be completed according to the current procedure until the amendments take effect.

The amendments to the APC, which concern justice in electronic form and will take effect on 1 July 2026, are of significant importance. The new provisions introduce the electronic exchange of information and files between institutions, courts and public service providers. Electronic summonses for legal entities, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs are introduced, as well as electronic communication between them. Judicial acts of administrative courts must be issued electronically. These new provisions aim to speed up the administration of administrative justice by introducing mandatory digitisation and shortening the deadlines within which administrative bodies and courts will rule (see items 13–22 below).

A new provision in the APC is Article 154a, which takes effect on 5 August 2025 (see item 6 below). It regulates the grounds for suspending, resuming and terminating administrative proceedings. Until these amendments, the relevant provisions of Art. 229–231 of the Civil Procedure Code (the “CPC“) were governing. The grounds for suspending proceedings under Art. 154a, para. 1 are repeated almost verbatim from Art. 229, para. 1 of the CPC. Additionally, two grounds for suspension are expressly regulated: (1) when an interpretive case has been initiated before the Supreme Court of Cassation or the Supreme Administrative Court regarding an important issue in the dispute, and (2) when another court has requested a preliminary ruling on an issue that determines the outcome of the dispute.

New to the APC is the provision of Art. 176a, which takes effect on 5 August 2025 (see item 7 below). This new provision replaces the application by reference under Art. 144 of the APC. A separate provision now governs the amendment and supplementation of the decision regarding costs. Article 248 of the CPC now regulates the amendment and supplementation of the decision regarding costs. Article 176a is analogous to Article 248 of the CPC. However, the APC stipulates that, when a cassation appeal is filed against a decision and a request for amendment or supplementation of the part concerning costs is submitted, the cassation court must also rule on the request.

An important change in challenging a regulatory act concerns the possibility for the court to terminate the case in cases where, in the course of the pending dispute, the issuer of the act amends or revokes it (see item 4 below). This change is based on the Court of Justice of the EU’s mandatory instructions, as stated in the 24 November 2022 Judgment in case C-289/21. This judgment put an end to the previous practice of Bulgaria’s administrative courts to automatically and unconditionally terminate cases against subordinate normative acts if their issuers amended or repealed them in the meantime. In the aforementioned judgment, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that the principle of effectiveness under the Charter of Fundamental Rights prevents a Member State’s procedural rule that states, “where a provision of domestic law challenged by an action for annulment on the ground that it is contrary to EU law is repealed and therefore ceases to have any effect for the future, the dispute is deemed to have become devoid of purpose, with the result that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it, without the parties having first been able to assert any interest they may have in the continuation of the proceedings and without any account having been taken of any such interest.” The court must now rule on appeals against regulatory acts that have been amended or repealed, when the application of the act until its repeal affects the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of one of the parties. In this case, the court may declare the contested bylaw or part of it null and void, establish its illegality in whole or in part, or reject the challenge.

In connection with the 2023 amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 13/26.07.2024 on Case No. 1/2024 (promulgated in SG No. 66 on 8 June 2024), the powers of prosecutors in administrative proceedings have changed under the APC (see item 8 below).

Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, in force as of 1 August 2025:

  1. The Council of Ministers, local self-government bodies, and local administrations are required to ensure that administrative authorities have the technological and technical ability to electronically submit complaints and protests, along with administrative files. The deadline for fulfilling this obligation is 30 June 2026.
  2. All administrative authorities must register with the Single e-Justice Portal (SEJP) and the Information System for Secure Electronic Delivery (ISSED) by 1 April 2026.

Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, in force as of 5 August 2025:

  1. The APC provides for two exceptions to the general three-day period for appealing against the order allowing or refusing preliminary execution, namely:
    3.1. when the order or the notice of its issuance does not specify to which authority and within what period an appeal may be filed – the time limit for appeal is 14 days;
    3.2. When the order or the notice for its issuance incorrectly states that it is not subject to appeal – the time limit for appeal is one month.
  2. Regarding the challenge of a bylaw, regulation or ordinance, or part thereof, that affects the rights, freedoms, or legitimate interests of any party and that has been amended or repealed by the issuing body during the challenge, the APC provides:
    4.1. that requests for protection against an unlawful regulatory act that has been repealed or amended by the issuing authority during the challenge are subject to the jurisdiction of the administrative courts.
    4.2. The court rules on the challenge and may declare the nullity of the contested regulatory act or part of it, establish its illegality in whole or in part, or reject the challenge.
    4.3. When the administrative authority annuls the subordinate administrative act during cassation proceedings, the Supreme Administrative Court invalidates the judgment of the first instance as inadmissible and terminates the case. However, if the application of the act until its revocation affects the rights, freedoms, or legitimate interests of one of the parties, the court issues a decision on the merits of the cassation appeal.
    4.4. There is a possibility to file a claim for compensation for damages when the illegality of the bylaw is established.
    4.5 The right to costs arises when the court declares the bylaw illegal in accordance with Art. 193, paragraph 2 of the APC.
  3. Expenses are already expressly covered in the event of the repeal, amendment or supplementation of a normative administrative act by a subsequent normative act.
  4. The SPC establishes independent grounds for the suspension and resumption of administrative proceedings. When proceedings are suspended by mutual consent and, within six months of suspension, none of the parties has requested resumption, the proceedings shall be terminated.
  5. The APC explicitly regulates proceedings for amending and supplementing the decision on costs, including in cassation proceedings.
  6. Regarding the powers of the prosecutor in the administrative process, the APC:
    8.1. Before the amendment to the APC, the prosecutor could only file a protest regarding the legality of an administrative act. Now, the prosecutor can also file a protest when exercising supervision over the execution of coercive measures.
    8.2. Before the amendment, cassation administrative cases were considered with the participation of a prosecutor who assessed the necessity of participating in the process. According to the amendment to the APC, in open hearings, a prosecutor participates in cases involving significant public interest or persons in need of special protection, as well as at his or her discretion under the conditions of Art. 16 of the APC.

Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, in force as of 3 September 2025:

  1. The changes in the failure to pronounce on time provide that:
    9.1. The time limit for challenging a tacit refusal by administrative order is two months, not one month, from the expiration of the period during which the administrative body was required to make a decision.
    9.2. If the interested parties were not informed of the initiation of proceedings, the tacit refusal may be challenged before the immediately superior administrative body within six months (rather than two months) from the expiration of the adjudication time limit.
    9.3. The time limit for challenging tacit refusals and tacit consents in administrative courts has also changed to two months from the expiration of the period in which the administrative body was required to issue a ruling.
    9.4. If the court revokes a tacit refusal and sends the file to the administrative body for a new ruling and the authority does not rule within the time limit specified by the court, the failure to rule is considered tacit consent. This applies provided that the court has established the presence of the substantive prerequisites for issuing an act with the content requested by the applicant.
  2. In addition, the amount of the fine for an official who fails to fulfill an obligation arising from an enforceable judicial act has been increased.
  3. The Law on the Liability of the State and Municipalities for Damages expressly stipulates that when the court obliges the authority to issue an administrative act or document and the authority fails to issue it within the time limit set by the court, the state is liable for material and non-material damages caused to citizens and legal entities by non-issuance of the document.

Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, in force as of 1 January 2026:

  1. Both the APC and the Judicial System Act regulate the new composition and number of judges in resolving disputes over jurisdiction between the ordinary and administrative courts. These cases are heard in a panel of five judges: a reporting judge – elected on the principle of random selection through an even electronic distribution among all judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court; and two judges from each court whose ruling is final.

Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, in force as of 1 July 2026:

  1. The APC mainly raises in the administrative proceedings the obligation of the authorities to provide access to detailed information on the possibility of submitting requests, proposals, complaints and signals in electronic form on their website and in a visible place in the respective building.
  2. The announcements in the administrative proceedings:
    14.1. The applicant or complainant, as well as all interested citizens who have been involved or intervened as parties, to provide an e-mail address for summons and notification is no longer possible. The possibilities for summoning and receiving documents and messages related to initiated proceedings are:
    (а) a personal profile registered in the ISSED;
    (b) a mobile phone that allows receiving a message containing information for downloading the document drawn up by the ISEC, when it is indicated in the personal profile under item 1.;
    (c) profile in the SEJP – only for court proceedings.
    14.2. Administrative bodies, judicial authorities, the Ombudsman, persons exercising public functions and organisations providing public services, organizations and lawyers participating in proceedings must indicate an e-mail address for summoning and receiving documents and messages:
    (a) through the ISSED – in proceedings before an administrative authority;
    (b) through the SEJP or through the ISSED – in proceedings before a court.
    14.3. In order to serve the notices for initiation of proceedings before the administrative authority to parties who have not indicated an electronic address or are not obliged to indicate such, the administrative body takes the image of the electronic document on paper, which is certified by the respective employee.
    14.4. The service of electronic documents by the administrative body is carried out by sending a message to the e-mail address, containing information about the download of the prepared document from the ISSED. The documents are considered to have been served when they are downloaded. When the recipient has not downloaded the document within 7 days of its sending, the document is considered to have been served on the first day after the expiration of this period. for sending, respectively downloading, stored in ISSED.
  3. The APC allows for procedural actions to be carried out electronically through the SEJP or ISSED. Electronic statements submitted to the court must be signed with a qualified electronic signature. In case of a technical malfunction or technological impossibility, the court or the party performing the action in electronic form shall immediately notify the other party of the obstacle and specify an alternative method of notification. The court reproduces the electronic statements, together with the annexes, in the required number of hard copies and sends them to participants in the proceedings to whom electronic service is not applicable. The party that performed the act electronically pays a photocopy fee in advance for the reproduction.
  4. Issuance of an individual administrative act:
    16.1. The APC obliges administrative bodies, judicial authorities, the Ombudsman, persons exercising public functions and organisations providing public services, organisations and lawyers to submit their requests for the issuance of an individual administrative act electronically.
    16.2. Other persons have the right to submit the request as an electronic document electronically.
    16.3. The submission of requests for the issuance of individual administrative acts electronically can be carried out 24 hours a day.
    16.4. For their part, the administrative authorities are obliged to accept the request electronically, as well as are obliged to ensure that the proceedings for the issuance of individual administrative acts can be carried out electronically, except where, due to the nature of the proceedings or acts, this is impossible or the law provides for a special form for the performance of individual actions or the issuance of the relevant acts.
    16.5. When the request for the issuance of an individual administrative act is made electronically, the administrative authority sends an official confirmation of receipt of the request in the form of an electronic document, as well as an indication that the notices in the proceedings will be served electronically. In this case, the requester is obliged to accept electronically the statements from the administrative body, except when he/she expressly withdraws his/her consent.
    16.6. Administrative authorities, judicial authorities, the Ombudsman, persons exercising public functions and public service organisations, as well as organisations and lawyers, may not refuse service by electronic means.
  5. Electronic administrative file:
    17.1. For each request for an individual administrative act and for each initiated proceeding, the administrative body shall create an electronic file. This file is a set of related electronic records arranged in the order of their receipt. These records contain brief descriptions of electronic documents and images.
    17.2. Statements, documents and other information received by the administrative body in paper form during the proceedings shall be entered into and stored in the electronic file, unless requested by another body or the court.
    17.3. If the electronic documents attached to the request are illegible or in a format different from that established in the Electronic Government Act, the applicant will receive a message stating that the receipt of the annexes is not confirmed, along with the reasons why and the option to resubmit them before the deadline to issue the decision expires. The time limit for issuing a decision begins three days after the applicant receives the notification. If the documents are submitted in a readable form and in the established format earlier, the time limit begins from the time of submission.
    17.4. The parties have the right to review the file and take notes and make extracts at any time during the proceedings. If technology allows, the parties have the right to access the file electronically, as well as make copies on paper and technical media at their own expense. After the proceedings conclude, the parties have the right of access under the National Archives Fund Act.
  6. Within three days of the expiration of the appeal time limits, the administrative body shall send the complaint or protest, along with the electronic file on the issuance of the act in its entirety, to the court and notify the sender. The authority shall send the file and letter in paper form only if required by law or if it is technologically impossible to send them electronically. In this case, the authority shall notify the court explicitly stating the grounds for this.
  7. The APC stipulates that, under the conditions of the Judicial System Act, the court may issue acts and perform all other procedural actions provided for by law in electronic form, unless their nature renders this impossible or the law provides for their performance in another way. When a decision is prepared electronically, it is signed with a qualified electronic signature and registered in the court’s information system.
  8. The conditions and requirements for performing procedural actions through videoconferencing are defined as “a communication connection through technical means for the simultaneous transmission and reception of images and sounds between participants in the process located in different places, allowing the recording and storage of information on electronic media.” In contrast to Art. 135a, paragraph 2 of the CPC, these “different places” do not have to be in a particular administrative or other building or in a court.
  9. A new provision in the APC states that, when presented in open court, an agreement can only be confirmed by the court if it is signed in advance by all parties, including those participating via videoconference.
  10. The possibility of performing procedural actions electronically is also regulated in proceedings for protection against unjustified actions performed by an administrative body or official that are not based on an administrative act or the law. The administrative body or official performing the unjustified actions must immediately send the court data on the grounds for the actions through the ISSED or SEJP.

August 2025

Meglena Konstantinova, Senior Associate

BOYANOV & Co.

On August 1, 2025, amendments and supplements to the Administrative Procedure Code (the “APC“) were promulgated (SG No. 63/2025). These amendments affect various aspects of the administrative process, and the legislator has established different deadlines for their implementation. Pending proceedings before the administrative body or court will be completed according to the current procedure until the amendments take effect.

The amendments to the APC, which concern justice in electronic form and will take effect on 1 July 2026, are of significant importance. The new provisions introduce the electronic exchange of information and files between institutions, courts and public service providers. Electronic summonses for legal entities, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs are introduced, as well as electronic communication between them. Judicial acts of administrative courts must be issued electronically. These new provisions aim to speed up the administration of administrative justice by introducing mandatory digitisation and shortening the deadlines within which administrative bodies and courts will rule (see items 13–22 below).

A new provision in the APC is Article 154a, which takes effect on 5 August 2025 (see item 6 below). It regulates the grounds for suspending, resuming and terminating administrative proceedings. Until these amendments, the relevant provisions of Art. 229–231 of the Civil Procedure Code (the “CPC“) were governing. The grounds for suspending proceedings under Art. 154a, para. 1 are repeated almost verbatim from Art. 229, para. 1 of the CPC. Additionally, two grounds for suspension are expressly regulated: (1) when an interpretive case has been initiated before the Supreme Court of Cassation or the Supreme Administrative Court regarding an important issue in the dispute, and (2) when another court has requested a preliminary ruling on an issue that determines the outcome of the dispute.

New to the APC is the provision of Art. 176a, which takes effect on 5 August 2025 (see item 7 below). This new provision replaces the application by reference under Art. 144 of the APC. A separate provision now governs the amendment and supplementation of the decision regarding costs. Article 248 of the CPC now regulates the amendment and supplementation of the decision regarding costs. Article 176a is analogous to Article 248 of the CPC. However, the APC stipulates that, when a cassation appeal is filed against a decision and a request for amendment or supplementation of the part concerning costs is submitted, the cassation court must also rule on the request.

An important change in challenging a regulatory act concerns the possibility for the court to terminate the case in cases where, in the course of the pending dispute, the issuer of the act amends or revokes it (see item 4 below). This change is based on the Court of Justice of the EU’s mandatory instructions, as stated in the 24 November 2022 Judgment in case C-289/21. This judgment put an end to the previous practice of Bulgaria’s administrative courts to automatically and unconditionally terminate cases against subordinate normative acts if their issuers amended or repealed them in the meantime. In the aforementioned judgment, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that the principle of effectiveness under the Charter of Fundamental Rights prevents a Member State’s procedural rule that states, “where a provision of domestic law challenged by an action for annulment on the ground that it is contrary to EU law is repealed and therefore ceases to have any effect for the future, the dispute is deemed to have become devoid of purpose, with the result that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it, without the parties having first been able to assert any interest they may have in the continuation of the proceedings and without any account having been taken of any such interest.” The court must now rule on appeals against regulatory acts that have been amended or repealed, when the application of the act until its repeal affects the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of one of the parties. In this case, the court may declare the contested bylaw or part of it null and void, establish its illegality in whole or in part, or reject the challenge.

In connection with the 2023 amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 13/26.07.2024 on Case No. 1/2024 (promulgated in SG No. 66 on 8 June 2024), the powers of prosecutors in administrative proceedings have changed under the APC (see item 8 below).

Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, in force as of 1 August 2025:

  1. The Council of Ministers, local self-government bodies, and local administrations are required to ensure that administrative authorities have the technological and technical ability to electronically submit complaints and protests, along with administrative files. The deadline for fulfilling this obligation is 30 June 2026.
  2. All administrative authorities must register with the Single e-Justice Portal (SEJP) and the Information System for Secure Electronic Delivery (ISSED) by 1 April 2026.

Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, in force as of 5 August 2025:

  1. The APC provides for two exceptions to the general three-day period for appealing against the order allowing or refusing preliminary execution, namely:
    3.1. when the order or the notice of its issuance does not specify to which authority and within what period an appeal may be filed – the time limit for appeal is 14 days;
    3.2. When the order or the notice for its issuance incorrectly states that it is not subject to appeal – the time limit for appeal is one month.
  2. Regarding the challenge of a bylaw, regulation or ordinance, or part thereof, that affects the rights, freedoms, or legitimate interests of any party and that has been amended or repealed by the issuing body during the challenge, the APC provides:
    4.1. that requests for protection against an unlawful regulatory act that has been repealed or amended by the issuing authority during the challenge are subject to the jurisdiction of the administrative courts.
    4.2. The court rules on the challenge and may declare the nullity of the contested regulatory act or part of it, establish its illegality in whole or in part, or reject the challenge.
    4.3. When the administrative authority annuls the subordinate administrative act during cassation proceedings, the Supreme Administrative Court invalidates the judgment of the first instance as inadmissible and terminates the case. However, if the application of the act until its revocation affects the rights, freedoms, or legitimate interests of one of the parties, the court issues a decision on the merits of the cassation appeal.
    4.4. There is a possibility to file a claim for compensation for damages when the illegality of the bylaw is established.
    4.5 The right to costs arises when the court declares the bylaw illegal in accordance with Art. 193, paragraph 2 of the APC.
  3. Expenses are already expressly covered in the event of the repeal, amendment or supplementation of a normative administrative act by a subsequent normative act.
  4. The SPC establishes independent grounds for the suspension and resumption of administrative proceedings. When proceedings are suspended by mutual consent and, within six months of suspension, none of the parties has requested resumption, the proceedings shall be terminated.
  5. The APC explicitly regulates proceedings for amending and supplementing the decision on costs, including in cassation proceedings.
  6. Regarding the powers of the prosecutor in the administrative process, the APC:
    8.1. Before the amendment to the APC, the prosecutor could only file a protest regarding the legality of an administrative act. Now, the prosecutor can also file a protest when exercising supervision over the execution of coercive measures.
    8.2. Before the amendment, cassation administrative cases were considered with the participation of a prosecutor who assessed the necessity of participating in the process. According to the amendment to the APC, in open hearings, a prosecutor participates in cases involving significant public interest or persons in need of special protection, as well as at his or her discretion under the conditions of Art. 16 of the APC.

Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, in force as of 3 September 2025:

  1. The changes in the failure to pronounce on time provide that:
    9.1. The time limit for challenging a tacit refusal by administrative order is two months, not one month, from the expiration of the period during which the administrative body was required to make a decision.
    9.2. If the interested parties were not informed of the initiation of proceedings, the tacit refusal may be challenged before the immediately superior administrative body within six months (rather than two months) from the expiration of the adjudication time limit.
    9.3. The time limit for challenging tacit refusals and tacit consents in administrative courts has also changed to two months from the expiration of the period in which the administrative body was required to issue a ruling.
    9.4. If the court revokes a tacit refusal and sends the file to the administrative body for a new ruling and the authority does not rule within the time limit specified by the court, the failure to rule is considered tacit consent. This applies provided that the court has established the presence of the substantive prerequisites for issuing an act with the content requested by the applicant.
  2. In addition, the amount of the fine for an official who fails to fulfill an obligation arising from an enforceable judicial act has been increased.
  3. The Law on the Liability of the State and Municipalities for Damages expressly stipulates that when the court obliges the authority to issue an administrative act or document and the authority fails to issue it within the time limit set by the court, the state is liable for material and non-material damages caused to citizens and legal entities by non-issuance of the document.

Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, in force as of 1 January 2026:

  1. Both the APC and the Judicial System Act regulate the new composition and number of judges in resolving disputes over jurisdiction between the ordinary and administrative courts. These cases are heard in a panel of five judges: a reporting judge – elected on the principle of random selection through an even electronic distribution among all judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court; and two judges from each court whose ruling is final.

Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, in force as of 1 July 2026:

  1. The APC mainly raises in the administrative proceedings the obligation of the authorities to provide access to detailed information on the possibility of submitting requests, proposals, complaints and signals in electronic form on their website and in a visible place in the respective building.
  2. The announcements in the administrative proceedings:
    14.1. The applicant or complainant, as well as all interested citizens who have been involved or intervened as parties, to provide an e-mail address for summons and notification is no longer possible. The possibilities for summoning and receiving documents and messages related to initiated proceedings are:
    (а) a personal profile registered in the ISSED;
    (b) a mobile phone that allows receiving a message containing information for downloading the document drawn up by the ISEC, when it is indicated in the personal profile under item 1.;
    (c) profile in the SEJP – only for court proceedings.
    14.2. Administrative bodies, judicial authorities, the Ombudsman, persons exercising public functions and organisations providing public services, organizations and lawyers participating in proceedings must indicate an e-mail address for summoning and receiving documents and messages:
    (a) through the ISSED – in proceedings before an administrative authority;
    (b) through the SEJP or through the ISSED – in proceedings before a court.
    14.3. In order to serve the notices for initiation of proceedings before the administrative authority to parties who have not indicated an electronic address or are not obliged to indicate such, the administrative body takes the image of the electronic document on paper, which is certified by the respective employee.
    14.4. The service of electronic documents by the administrative body is carried out by sending a message to the e-mail address, containing information about the download of the prepared document from the ISSED. The documents are considered to have been served when they are downloaded. When the recipient has not downloaded the document within 7 days of its sending, the document is considered to have been served on the first day after the expiration of this period. for sending, respectively downloading, stored in ISSED.
  3. The APC allows for procedural actions to be carried out electronically through the SEJP or ISSED. Electronic statements submitted to the court must be signed with a qualified electronic signature. In case of a technical malfunction or technological impossibility, the court or the party performing the action in electronic form shall immediately notify the other party of the obstacle and specify an alternative method of notification. The court reproduces the electronic statements, together with the annexes, in the required number of hard copies and sends them to participants in the proceedings to whom electronic service is not applicable. The party that performed the act electronically pays a photocopy fee in advance for the reproduction.
  4. Issuance of an individual administrative act:
    16.1. The APC obliges administrative bodies, judicial authorities, the Ombudsman, persons exercising public functions and organisations providing public services, organisations and lawyers to submit their requests for the issuance of an individual administrative act electronically.
    16.2. Other persons have the right to submit the request as an electronic document electronically.
    16.3. The submission of requests for the issuance of individual administrative acts electronically can be carried out 24 hours a day.
    16.4. For their part, the administrative authorities are obliged to accept the request electronically, as well as are obliged to ensure that the proceedings for the issuance of individual administrative acts can be carried out electronically, except where, due to the nature of the proceedings or acts, this is impossible or the law provides for a special form for the performance of individual actions or the issuance of the relevant acts.
    16.5. When the request for the issuance of an individual administrative act is made electronically, the administrative authority sends an official confirmation of receipt of the request in the form of an electronic document, as well as an indication that the notices in the proceedings will be served electronically. In this case, the requester is obliged to accept electronically the statements from the administrative body, except when he/she expressly withdraws his/her consent.
    16.6. Administrative authorities, judicial authorities, the Ombudsman, persons exercising public functions and public service organisations, as well as organisations and lawyers, may not refuse service by electronic means.
  5. Electronic administrative file:
    17.1. For each request for an individual administrative act and for each initiated proceeding, the administrative body shall create an electronic file. This file is a set of related electronic records arranged in the order of their receipt. These records contain brief descriptions of electronic documents and images.
    17.2. Statements, documents and other information received by the administrative body in paper form during the proceedings shall be entered into and stored in the electronic file, unless requested by another body or the court.
    17.3. If the electronic documents attached to the request are illegible or in a format different from that established in the Electronic Government Act, the applicant will receive a message stating that the receipt of the annexes is not confirmed, along with the reasons why and the option to resubmit them before the deadline to issue the decision expires. The time limit for issuing a decision begins three days after the applicant receives the notification. If the documents are submitted in a readable form and in the established format earlier, the time limit begins from the time of submission.
    17.4. The parties have the right to review the file and take notes and make extracts at any time during the proceedings. If technology allows, the parties have the right to access the file electronically, as well as make copies on paper and technical media at their own expense. After the proceedings conclude, the parties have the right of access under the National Archives Fund Act.
  6. Within three days of the expiration of the appeal time limits, the administrative body shall send the complaint or protest, along with the electronic file on the issuance of the act in its entirety, to the court and notify the sender. The authority shall send the file and letter in paper form only if required by law or if it is technologically impossible to send them electronically. In this case, the authority shall notify the court explicitly stating the grounds for this.
  7. The APC stipulates that, under the conditions of the Judicial System Act, the court may issue acts and perform all other procedural actions provided for by law in electronic form, unless their nature renders this impossible or the law provides for their performance in another way. When a decision is prepared electronically, it is signed with a qualified electronic signature and registered in the court’s information system.
  8. The conditions and requirements for performing procedural actions through videoconferencing are defined as “a communication connection through technical means for the simultaneous transmission and reception of images and sounds between participants in the process located in different places, allowing the recording and storage of information on electronic media.” In contrast to Art. 135a, paragraph 2 of the CPC, these “different places” do not have to be in a particular administrative or other building or in a court.
  9. A new provision in the APC states that, when presented in open court, an agreement can only be confirmed by the court if it is signed in advance by all parties, including those participating via videoconference.
  10. The possibility of performing procedural actions electronically is also regulated in proceedings for protection against unjustified actions performed by an administrative body or official that are not based on an administrative act or the law. The administrative body or official performing the unjustified actions must immediately send the court data on the grounds for the actions through the ISSED or SEJP.