Category: Bulgaria

Eversheds Sutherland has announced it is combining with Sofia-based “long-standing relationship firm” Tsvetkova Bebov & Partners, as of June 22, 2022.

The TBP team joining Eversheds is led by Irina Tsvetkova, specializing in M&A, commercial, and corporate law, and Nikolay Bebov, specializing in capital markets, banking, financial services, and M&A, and includes Partners Damyan Leshev, specializing in capital markets and banking, and Victoria Tzonkova, specializing in commercial transactions, litigation and dispute resolution, insolvency, and employment law matters, as well as 15 further lawyers.

“The firm is committed to growing across Europe and is now present in 23 countries,” Eversheds Sutherland Chair for Europe Ian Gray commented. “We are delighted to be working more closely with the Bulgarian practice which will expand our Central Eastern European presence.”

“By joining forces with Eversheds Sutherland, and having the weight of a global brand behind us, we will be able to drive the further growth of our practice across CEE,” Eversheds Sutherland Bulgaria Managing Partner Irina Tsvetkova added. “This is a very important step for us. Our people, our clients, and our communities will all benefit from our more visible presence in the market. Our lawyers will be able to further develop their skills and knowledge across multi-jurisdictional sectors, our national and international client base will benefit from inbound and outbound opportunities in new markets, and the feedback from our community is one of huge excitement that Eversheds Sutherland, with its strong global brand and reputation, will be established in Sofia.”

Tsvetkova Bebov & Partners has advised on the preparation of the new Bulgarian Covered Bonds Act. 

According to the Tsvetkova Bebov & Partners, “on March 29, 2022, the new Bulgarian Covered Bonds Act was promulgated in the country’s State Gazette. The Covered Bonds Act transposes the EU’s Covered Bonds Directive (EU) 2019/2162 and was prepared as part of a legislative project initiated by the Bulgarian Ministry of Finance supported by technical assistance from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.”

According to the firm, “the new Covered Bonds Act repeals the Mortgage Bonds Act and is expected to establish a comprehensive legal framework for the issuance of covered bonds and their supervision by the Bulgarian National Bank, which follows best international practice and applicable EU law. Key elements of the new legislation include requirements on cover pool composition, creation of security interest, coverage, and liquidity, as well as on the separation and administration of cover pools in the case of bankruptcy or resolution of the issuing bank. The act also lays out dedicated rules on the use of cover pool derivatives and extendable maturity structures, on cover pool monitors, as well as facilitates the issuance of jointly funded covered bonds and cross-border issuances by Bulgarian banks.”

Tsvetkova Bebov & Partners’ team included Managing Partner Nikolay Bebov, Partner Damyan Leshev, Counsel Maria Karacholova, Senior Associate Petar Ivanov, and Associate Kristina Dimitrova.

Deloitte Legal has advised Kongsberg Digital and the shareholders of InterConsult Bulgaria on the acquisition of the company from ICB founders Stoyan Dobrev and Atanas Dobrev. Yordanov and Dobrev reportedly advised the sellers.

According to Deloitte Legal, “Kongsberg Digital, a subsidiary of Kongsberg, is a provider of next-generation software and digital solutions to customers within maritime, oil and gas, and renewables and utilities. The company consists of more than 800 software experts with competence within the internet of things, smart data, artificial intelligence, maritime simulation, automation, and autonomous operations. Kongsberg Digital is the group-wide center of digital expertise for Kongsberg, an international, knowledge-based group delivering high-technology systems and solutions to clients within the oil and gas industry, merchant marine, defense, and aerospace.”

According to the firm, “ICB is an established provider of innovative software solutions in the fields of industrial engineering, maritime, banking and financial services, and information technologies operating in the Nordic region, Western Europe, and North America. Upon acquisition, ICB will serve as KDI’s European development hub for software development to attract and develop key talent to deliver into existing projects and support KDI’s vision to accelerate the green shift by digitalizing the world’s industries.”

Deloitte Legal’s team was led by Partner Reneta Petkova and Manager Miglena Micheva and included Associates Kristian Nemtsov and Nadya Elchinova.

CMS has successfully defended hydropower producer Kooperatsiya Parallel 2000 in a post-privatization dispute initiated by Bulgaria’s Public Enterprises and Control Agency.

According to CMS, in 2020, the PEC Agency brought a claim against Kooperatsiya Parallel 2000, which had acquired a hydropower plant back in 2006 through privatization. “The Agency sought payment of liquidated damages amounting to 50% of the sale price, based on allegations of a breach of the obligation for non-disposal of the asset, stipulated in the privatization contract.”

“The court fully agreed with our arguments and ruled that the obligation assumed under the privatization contract is null and void, as it is in direct contradiction to the constitutional right to private property and the rules for the protection of property provided for by the European Convention on Human Rights,” CMS informed. “The court further stated that the specifics of the privatization process and the public interest defended by the post-privatization control do not substantiate any restrictions on the enjoyment of property that are not subject to reasonable time limits. On this basis, the court rejected all claims as unfounded on the merits with a final court judgment.”

“This ruling is unique, although it is not a rare practice for such clauses to be included in contracts for the privatization of infrastructure assets. Thus, the ruling sets an important precedent for many post-privatization disputes that may be brought on the same grounds,” the firm added.

The CMS team was led by Partner Assen Georgiev and Associate Yana Antonova.

In most countries, the energy consumption of buildings reaches very high levels, making their energy efficiency potential high. Buildings play an important role in energy efficiency and make a significant contribution to combating climate change and energy consumption. Therefore, it is important to align the process, from the buildings’ design to their final completion and exploitation, with the pertinent green standards.

As per the Bulgarian Energy Efficiency Act and the Spatial Development Act, any building investment project should meet certain requirements regarding energy efficiency. These requirements apply to each and every investment project for (1) construction of a building; (2) redevelopment of a building which alters the building’s energy performance; as well as (3) redevelopment, deep renovation, or major renovation of a building which encompass more than 25% of the area of the external fence structures and components of the building and which alter the building’s energy performance.

Investment projects must: (1) take into account the technical, environmental, and economic feasibility of high-efficiency alternative installations and systems; (2) provide a possibility for mounting self-regulation devices and for separate regulation of temperature in each individual room or – where justified, technically possible, and economically viable – in a specially designated heating space in a separate part of a building; and (3) envisage designing buildings with near to zero energy consumption.

After final completion of construction, each new building receives an energy performance certificate. The assignor is required to obtain an energy performance certificate for the new building prior to the commissioning. The new building’s energy performance certificate is one of the statutory documents required for obtaining a use permit for the building.

The requirement for obtaining an energy performance certificate is not applicable to: (1) buildings of cultural merit, so far as compliance with certain minimum energy performance requirements would alter the architectural and/or artistic character of the building; (2) buildings owned by the armed forces or the administration and serving national defense purposes; (3) places of worship of the legally registered religious denominations in Bulgaria; (4) temporary buildings with a planned time of use not exceeding two years; (5) non-residential buildings with low energy consumption used for agricultural activities; (6) manufacturing buildings and parts of buildings with a productive assigned use; (7) residential buildings which are used as such for either less than four months of the year or, alternatively, for a limited annual time and with an expected energy consumption of less than 25% of what would be the result of all-year use; and (8) buildings with a total floor area of less than 50 square meters.

The energy performance requirements are subject to mandatory regular verification every five years and, where necessary, shall be updated in order to reflect technological advances in the building sector.

The energy performance requirements also apply to investment projects for the redevelopment of a building and to already constructed buildings. The energy performance of buildings in use is subject to an energy efficiency audit. Its purpose is to determine the level of energy consumption, identify the specific opportunities for reducing consumption, and recommend energy efficiency improvement measures. After successful completion of the audit, the building receives an energy performance certificate.

The energy performance certificate for a building in use is valid for up to ten years, depending on the energy consumption category of the building per the energy consumption scale. After the expiry of the validity term, the owner of the building is required to reobtain an up-to-date energy performance certificate for the building.

When a new building for which an energy performance certificate has been issued, or a stand-alone unit therein, is announced for sale or rent, the “specific annual expenditure of primary energy” indicator, in kilowatt-hours per square meter, as stated in the energy performance certificate, shall be noted in all announcements. Upon the sale of a new building, the seller shall provide the buyer with the original energy performance certificate of the building. Upon the sale of a building unit in a new building, renting a new building, or a building unit therein, the seller or landlord shall provide the buyer or tenant with a copy of the energy performance certificate of the building. However, if the seller or landlord should fail to provide such a certificate that would not affect the validity of the deal or rental contract.

By Antonia Kehayova, Co-Head of Real Estate, CMS Sofia

This Article was originally published in Issue 9.3 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

On May 19, 2022, CEE Legal Matters reported that CMS had advised Portugal’s MGI Capital on the sale of Bezmer Energy to Philicon-97. CEE In-House Matters spoke with Pedro Lameira, CFO at MGI Capital, to learn more about the sale.

CEEIHM: Let’s start with a brief introduction of MGI Capital.

Lameira: We are a Portuguese company with a strong export profile and an international presence in more than 65 countries. With more than 100 years of history, our origins date back to the foundation, in 1905, of the A Moderna, Mechanical Sawmill company, which later evolved into a company dedicated to the production of motors, generators, transformers, and electrical accessories and where the necessary skills were created to support the great future developments of what would become the engineering company Efacec.

In the 21st century, as a response to the economic and financial crisis that was felt throughout the world, we adopted a new positioning, which culminated in the resizing of our international structure and the simplification of the portfolio.

At the end of 2013, Efacec Capital began a process of restructuring its subsidiaries, which resulted in the creation of Efacec Power Solutions, SA., which brought together a group of companies that brought together all the means of production, technologies, and technical and human skills for the development of activities in the fields of energy, engineering, environment, transport, and electric mobility solutions, while also covering a vast network of subsidiaries, branches, and agents spread across four continents.

In October 2015, Efacec Capital sold around 70% of the capital of Efacec Power Solutions and had to change its name to MGI Capital. Since then, MGI Capital has focused on developing its business platform in the area of maintenance, and on managing the portfolio of its holdings.

CEEIHM: As reported by CEELM, you recently sold Bezmer Energy in Bulgaria. What brought this deal on and what was it about the target that you believe made it particularly attractive?

Lameira: After having completed the divestment of the three photovoltaic solar parks in Spain, we decided to sell the remaining solar park in our portfolio – the one in Bulgaria. This was a difficult decision, given that it was a park that was working very well and was very well managed, always meeting production objectives. However, the uncertainty regarding future legislative changes in Bulgaria in the renewables area, and the current environment of energy shortages, with record prices, strengthened the decision that this was the ideal time to proceed with its sale.

CEEIHM: What would you say was the most complex aspect of the deal?

Lameira: The current COVID-19 pandemic framework, which greatly limited all traveling and obtaining some documents, evidenced the great collaboration between all the parties, in overcoming the various obstacles. At the same time, the linguistic difference resulting from the use of the Cyrillic alphabet in many of the official documents implied much greater confidence when signing certain documents.

CEEIHM: How was the legal work split between your in-house team and that of CMS?

Lameira: We held several meetings through Teams, to identify possible problems, and define the different alternatives, which allowed us to decide on the way forward. But CMS ended up taking the lead, on our behalf, in resolving many of the issues.

Our legal department also accompanied these meetings and reviewed the documents submitted by CMS, but overall, the requested changes were minimal.

CEEIHM: And why did you choose CMS to advise you on this deal?

Lameira: CMS has been our legal partner since we acquired the park over 10 years ago and we have complete confidence in their work. We couldn’t be happier, and I sincerely believe that this operation only went so well because we were advised by them.

Originally reported by CEE In-House Matters.

The Supreme Court confirmed parties’ freedom to contractually modify any of the prerequisites for set-off under Bulgarian law, thus permitting various quasi-security arrangements in commercial and financial contracts that creditors may avail themselves of.

Prerequisites for statutory set-off in Bulgaria

Under article 103 of the Bulgarian Contracts and Obligations Act (the “COA“), if two parties owe each other¹ money or other replaceable assets, each of the parties whose receivable is due and “liquid” (i.e. indisputable as to legal grounds and amount) may set it off against its obligation to the other party. This mechanism is characterised as “statutory set-off”, since each of the parties may take recourse to it when the prerequisites under the statute (i.e. art. 103 COA) exist. As the requirement for “liquidity” under the “statutory set-off” is quite cumbersome, sophisticated creditors are attempting to avoid it via “contractual set-off”, i.e. to agree with their counterparty for the effects of the set-off to occur where any or all prerequisites (and most importantly “liquidity”) for “statutory set-off” do not exist.

The purpose of this newsletter is to highlight some important case law developments in Bulgaria confirming the validity of contractual set-off and to summarise its practical importance.

Validity and scope of contractual set-off, deviating from statutory set-off

As there has been some uncertainty among legal scholars and some lower instance courts around the possibility for contractual set-off, it is important that there is now a Supreme Court confirmation for the validity of contractual set-off – Judgment No. 156 of 15 November 2019 under commercial case No. 2875/2018, II-nd commercial department of the Supreme Court of Cassation, reported by judge Tatiana Varbanova (the “Judgment“). The first and second instance court in this case held that a contractual set-off invoked by the Bulgarian State Agency “Road Infrastructure” on account of a contractual penalty for delayed performance vis-à-vis a portion of a road construction price was ineffective, since the existence and amount of the penalty was disputed by the respondent Black Sea Autobans AD, i.e. it was not “liquid”. The lower courts accepted the submission that contractual set-off may only be effective if the prerequisites for statutory set-off, including the requirement for “liquidity”, exist.

The Supreme Court rejected this submission and overruled the lower instance court judgments. It held that contractual set-off is permissible under Bulgarian law (i) based on the concept of freedom of contract under art. 9 COA, whereby “parties are free to agree on any matter under their contract if it does not violate mandatory laws and good faith”, and (ii) since the prerequisites for statutory set-off are dispositive, i.e. they apply only if the parties have not agreed otherwise.

The rationale of the Judgment was recently restated – again at Supreme Court level – in Resolution No. 197 of 14 April 2021 under commercial case No. 1170/2020, II-nd commercial department of the Supreme Court of Cassation, reported by Judge Emilia Vassileva. These developments should give comfort to creditors wishing to avail themselves of contractual set-off as a security in their commercial or financial agreements.

Practical importance of the Judgment

The Judgment is very important for parties who have so far not actively used contractual set-off due to doubts about its enforceability, e.g. investors wishing to set-off a contractual penalty (that may potentially be disputed by their contractor) against a portion of a project price due by them (i.e. on facts similar to those under the Judgment), as such players may now include contractual set-off arrangements among the tools protecting their interests. Although in theory set-off is regarded as a “quasi-security”, in practice it is a “super security” compared to most traditional security interests. By invoking it creditors satisfy their debts immediately, without a formal and costly procedure and in case of insolvency they may do so prior to all other secured creditors.

The Judgment is equally important for some sophisticated players like banks and financial institutions that regularly use contractual set-off as a risk mitigation tool in case their counterparties in finance transactions are in default. Such players now have more arguments to rely on set-off, including before regulatory authorities for capital relief purposes.

However, parties wishing to invoke contractual set-off should not expect courts to easily deduce the existence of such arrangements. On the contrary, much of the older case law rejecting the permissibility of contractual set-off was premised on there being no clearly expressed intention of the parties to deviate from statutory set-off. Therefore, clear, explicit and appropriate arrangements should be in place to displace the requirements for statutory set-off and substitute them with contractual clauses.

Special attention should be paid to the potential insolvency of a Bulgarian counterparty. As opposed to some other jurisdictions that treat set-off as a non-permitted preference, Bulgarian law allows set-off in insolvency when the prerequisites for it occur. Nevertheless, to reinforce the smooth enforceability of contractual set-off in case of insolvency, some special additional arrangements need to be considered by sophisticated creditors.

¹ It is established under Bulgarian case law that “mutuality” is not restricted to one and the same relationship (i.e. one contract) but would also exist for obligations under different relationships/contracts as far as the parties to these different relations are the same.

By Tsvetan Krumov, Attorney at Law, Schoenherr

In January 2022, the new Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union of 15 December 2021 on health technology assessment (the “HTA Regulation”) entered into force on the territory of the European Union. The HTA Regulation aims to harmonize (but not to fully centralize) the currently fragmented procedure for assessing the health technologies of innovative medical therapies entering the European Union market in different European countries. The HTA Regulation shall begin to apply in stages from 12 January 2025 and the European Commission has already approved an implementation plan until that date, which includes mainly the establishment of the information resources needed for its operation, the creation of new supranational bodies to participate in the application of the Regulation and training of the competent national authorities.

Purpose and scope of the HTA Regulation

The main purpose of the HTA Regulation is to introduce a level of harmonization between HTAs performed by different Member States, which will (i) reduce the administrative burden for health technology developers (most often innovative pharmaceutical companies) by providing that developers should submit only one application and only one set of documents for the conduct of an HTA; (ii) increase legal certainty for health technology developers by setting up mechanisms to prevent arbitrary refusal to issue a positive assessment of an HTA by a Member State in the presence of a positive opinion at the central level (although, as described below, member states will preserve competence to refuse due to national considerations).

Competent authority

For the purposes of this centralization, the HTA Regulation establishes a new European supranational body – the Member State Coordination Group on Health Technology Assessment (the “Coordination Group”). The Regulation defines the broad competencies of the Coordination Group, the main ones being to: (i) adopt methodological guidance on joint work, (ii) adopt detailed procedural steps and the timeframe for the conduct of joint clinical assessments and joint scientific consultations; (iii) establish and coordinate subgroups which exercise the main part of the responsibilities of the Coordination Group, namely – adopt (i) joint clinical assessments; (ii) joint scientific consultations; (iii) identification of emerging health technologies; (iv) development of methodological and procedural guidance.

Responsibilities of the Coordination Group – conducting joint clinical assessments

The main responsibility of the Coordination Group is to carry out joint clinical assessments, which is similar to the issue of a framework assessment of health technologies at the European level.

Not all types of health technologies fall within the scope of the obligation to carry out a joint clinical assessment at the European level. Additionally, this responsibility does not begin to apply to all types of health technologies at the same time. The following health technologies fall within the scope of joint clinical assessments:

• Medicinal products listed in Annex № 1 to Regulation (EC) № 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (for example: medicinal products with recombinant DNA technology, medicinal products for cancer, diabetes, AIDS, autoimmune and viral diseases, etc.). These are medicinal products that are authorized for use under a centralized procedure;
• Medicinal products with a new active substance for which there was no authorization in the Community until the date of entry into force of the Regulation;
• Medicinal products for which a new therapeutic indication has been approved, in which case a joint clinical assessment report has been published;
• Class IIb or III medical devices for which (i) a clinical assessment procedure has been performed under Art. 54 of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017; (ii) the European Commission has adopted a decision, establishing that such medical devices are subject to a joint clinical assessment based on the criteria set out in the HTA Regulation (among which are unmet medical needs, first in class, major Union-wide added value, etc.) (“Selection Decision”);
• In vitro diagnostic medical devices classified as class D, for which (i) a conformity assessment procedure under Art. 48 (6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 has been performed; (ii) the European Commission has adopted a Selection Decision;

The Regulation provides a step-by step introduction of mandatory joint clinical assessments on different dates for different product types:

• From 12 January 2025 – for medicinal products with new active substances for the treatment of cancer and advanced therapy medicinal products pursuant to Regulation (EC) № 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as for medical devices listed in a final Selection Decision of the EC;
• From 13 January 2028 – for orphan medicinal products pursuant to Regulation (EC) № 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
• From 13 January 2030 – for all other types of medicinal products falling within the scope of the HTA Regulation.

The HTA Regulation describes in detail the procedure for initiating a joint clinical assessment, the obligations, and deadlines for the submission of evidence by health technology developers, the adoption and discussion with stakeholders of a draft assessment report and the approval of a final joint clinical assessment report. The scope of the assessment shall include, in particular, all relevant assessment parameters in relation to: (i) the patient population; (ii) the intervention or interventions; (iii) the comparative alternative or alternatives; (iv) health outcomes.

The most important consequence of the adoption of a final joint clinical assessment report is for national authorities, while adopting a national HTA. In summary, there are several limitations on the powers of national authorities, which shall:

• give due consideration to the published joint clinical assessment reports and all other information available on the IT platform of the Coordination Group. This shall not affect Member States’ competence to draw their conclusions on the overall clinical added value of a health technology in the context of their specific healthcare system and to consider the parts of those reports relevant in that context. By argumentum e contrario, we would conclude that national authorities are obliged to adopt conclusions on the clinical added value in cases that do not depend on the specifics of the national healthcare system;
• annex the dossier submitted by the health technology developer to the Coordination Group, as well as the published joint clinical assessment report on to the national HTA report;
• not request at the national level information, data, analyses or other evidence that has been submitted by the health technology developer at Union level;
• Immediately share any information, data, analyses and other evidence with the Coordination Group that they receive from the health technology developer.

Simply put, the adoption of a positive joint clinical assessment report shifts the burden of proof on the health technology assessment from the developer to the national authority, i.e., the national authority must explicitly and in detail argue why it refuses to issue a positive HTA for a technology, which is positively assessed at Union level. Respectively, in the absence or weakly substantiated statement on the reasons for such a negative HTA by the NCPRMP (for medicinal products) or the NHIF (for medical devices), the health technology developer could appeal before the courts.

Other responsibilities of the Coordination group

In addition to the Coordination Group’s responsibility to adopt joint clinical assessments (similar to Bulgarian Health Technology Assessments), the HTA Regulation provides for the Coordination Group to conduct several additional types of assessments / consultations that are currently absent in Bulgarian legislation:

• Joint Scientific Consultations – The purpose of the Joint Scientific Consultations is the ongoing exchange of information with health technology developers on their plans for the development of a specific health technology. These consultations facilitate the generation of evidence that meets the requirements for appropriate evidence for the subsequent joint clinical assessment of the health technology. A health technology shall be eligible for joint scientific consultation where it is likely to be the  subject to joint clinical assessment and where the clinical studies and clinical investigations are still in the planning stage. Joint scientific consultations do not produce a legally binding result, but are useful for pharmaceutical companies and government bodies, as the exchange of information on a product in advance of the forthcoming HTA, increases the chances for a positive assessment.
• Identification of emerging health technologies – The Coordination Group shall ensure the preparation of reports on emerging health technologies expected to have a major impact on patients, public health or healthcare systems. Those reports shall in particular address the estimated clinical impact and potential organizational and financial consequences of emerging health technologies for national healthcare systems;
• Voluntary cooperation services – The HTA Regulation provides that the Coordination Group shall be used to facilitate the cooperation and the exchange of scientific information between Member States in the field of: (i) non-clinical assessments on health technologies, (ii) collaborative assessments on medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices, (iii) the HTA of products other than medicinal products, medical devices or in vitro diagnostic medical devices, (iv) the provision of additional evidence necessary to support HTA, (v) clinical assessments of health technologies, for which a joint clinical assessment is not yet  initiated and health technologies are not subject to a joint clinical assessment. Regarding the above mentioned services, it could be said that the cooperation through the Coordination Group is on a voluntary basis, similar to the cooperation through the already repealed Directive 2011/24/EU.

By Philip Kiossev, Senior Associate, and Eleonora Mateina, Managing Associate, Tsvetkova Bebov & Partners

Djingov Gouginski Kyutchukov & Velichkov has advised Ukrainian professional tennis player Elina Svitolina on the incorporation and establishment of the Elina Svitolina Foundation in Bulgaria.

According to DGKV, “the objectives of the Elina Svitolina Foundation are the development and promotion of the sport of tennis, educational activities, as well as assistance to Ukrainian refugees who have been forced to leave their homes because of the war between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. The foundation plans large-scale fundraising and promotion of its activities.”

DGKV’s team included Partner Angel Ganev and Senior Associate Krassimir Stephanov.

CMS has advised Portugal’s MGI Capital on the sale of Bezmer Energy to Philicon-97.

Bezmer Energy is a Bulgarian company operating a four-megawatt photovoltaic project. According to CMS, the project was put into operation in 2010 and “enjoys a 25-year feed-in tariff since 2010, which was transformed to a contract for premium in 2016.” 

Philicon-97 is a Bulgarian food company with a 70-year history, producing fruit and vegetable canned products, juices, nectars, and drinks.

Last year, CMS successfully represented Bezmer Energy in a dispute against the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Bulgaria involving the country’s feed-in tariff (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on January 7, 2021).

The CMS team included Partners Assen Georgiev and Atanas Bangachev, Counsel Veliko Savov, Senior Associate Iveta Manolova, and Associate Elena Yotova-Yordanova.