Could the Grounds of the Court Decision Be Subject of a Correction of a Clear Factual Error & Interpretation? – Part I, Vasil Raychev, PhD

1. Introduction

On the basis of Art. 118 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, justice is implemented in the name of the people. This leading principle in justice requires the will of the court to be objectified in the court acts in a correct and accessible (understandable) manner for the parties. A manifestation of this exact principle in the process is the proceedings for the correction of a clear factual error (Art. 247 of the Civil Procedure Code /CPC/) and the interpretation of the decision (Art. 251 of the CPC). The subject of both proceedings are defects that do not affect the legal conclusions of the court on the merits of the dispute and therefore cannot be eliminated by the path of appeal but shall be indicated in a special procedural order. Although in these proceedings the dispute, subject to the basic proceedings, is not resolved on the merits, it is in them that the court is “closest” to the parties, since it gives them the assistance due in accordance with Art. 2 of the CPC, clarifying the doubts regarding the will formed by him, thus facilitating the execution of the judicial act. Therefore, both proceedings are developed before the court that has issued the relevant act itself (Art. 247, para. 1 of the CPC, Art. 251, para. 1 of the CPC) and not before the superior court. Insofar as in accordance with Art. 64, para. 1 of the Judiciary Act /JSA/ the acts of the courts shall be published immediately after their issuance on the website of the respective court, and some of them are also published in legal information systems, bulletins, compendiums, commentaries, and other practical and scientific sources, the clarification of the correct and actual will of the court is important not only for the parties in the particular case but also for the whole legal community and for the development of law in general.

2. Regarding the proceedings for the correction of a clear factual error

The proceedings for the correction of a clear factual error /CFE/ are regulated in Art. 247 of the CPC. According to para. 1 of the provision, the court on its own initiative or at the request of the parties may correct the clear factual errors committed in the decision. The court informs the parties about the requested correction with the instruction to submit a written response within one week. In principle, the request for the correction of the CFE is considered in a closed session, but according to Art. 247, para. 3 of the CPC, the court may summon the parties in an open session when it considers it necessary. The decision for the correction is served on the parties and may be appealed in the same procedural order in which the decision on the merits of the dispute is subject to appealmed as the legal basis for the admissibility of its cassation (Art. 280, para. 2, prop. 3 of the CPC). At the same time, in the grounds of it. 2A of Interpretative judgement No. 4 of 14.03.2016 on interpretative case No. 4/2014 of the General Assembly of the Civil and the Commercial Chambers of the Supreme Court of Cassation[2], it is stated that when under a proprietary claim the court has missed to issue a declaratory operative part of the decision regarding the right to property, but in its grounds the court has found that the claimant is the owner of the real estate in dispute, the decision itself is not incorrect, yet it contains a CFE, which is subject to correction under the procedural order established in Art. 247 of the CPC. I could not share this view of the supreme instance, insofar as, in the first place, as well as noted in one of the reserved opinions on the indicated interpretative decision, in this case there is no discrepancy between the true will formed by the court and its external expression in the written text of the decision, since the will of the court is formed entirely in accordance with the one and only request of the claimant – for the returning of the property from the defendant who possess it unlawfully, and in accordance of the type of defense provided by the condemnatory claim under Art. 108 of the Property Act – to allow enforcement of the receivable, and, in the second place, the issuance by the court of certain operative part of the decision is directly related to the legal judgement committed by the judicial body, which is why its non-issuance could be overcome by a request for the supplementation of the decision pursuant to Art. 250 of the CPC, but not using the procedure for the correction of errors of factual (non-legal) nature.

The court practice regarding the possibility for the correction of the grounds of the judicial act pursuant Art. 247 of the CPC is contradictory. The Supreme Court of Cassation /SCC/ has established a practice according to which, under Art. 247 of the CPC, a CFE can be corrected not only in the operative part, but also in the grounds of the judicial act – Decision No. 126 of 26.08.2009 on civil case No. 131/2008 of the SCC, Civil Chamber /CC/, II civil department /c. d./, Decision No. 94 of 08.04.2011 on civil case No. 1990/2009 of the SCC, CC, I c. d., Decision No. 16 of 18.01.2012 on civil case No. 870/2010 of the SCC, CC, III c. d., Decision No. 38 of 01.02.2012 on civil case No. 343/2011 of the SCC, CC, I c. d., Decision No. 140 of 11.05.2015 on case No. 5675/2014 of the SCC, GC, I c. d., Decision No. 160 of 17.03.2025 on case No. 3609/2023 of the SCC, CC, I c. d., etc. In all the aforementioned decisions, the supreme instance has not only stated that a correction of a CFE in the grounds of the judicial act is admissible but has also explicitly allowed the correction of errors precisely in the grounds of the relevant acts.

[1] Mingova, A. – In: Stalev. Z., A. Mingova, O. Stamboliev, V. Popova, R. Ivanova. Bulgarian civil procedure law. 10-th complemented and revised edition. Sofia: Ciela, 2020, p. 509.

[2] For further details, see Interpretative judgement No. 4 of 14.03.2016 on interpretative case No. 4/2014 of the General Assembly of the Civil and the Commercial Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation.