Latchezar Popov has an extensive experience in:


  • Intellectual property and Trademark law
  • Еmployment law.
  • Family law.
  • Wills and Trusts.
  • Property Law.
  • Contracts and Sales.
  • Criminal Law.
  • Administrative Law.
  • Registration of non-profit organizations.
  • Liquidation of non-profit organizations, companies and entities.
  • Legal services for immigration including visas and permits for commercial and non-profit activities.
  • Assistance in court and judicial settlement of disputes.
  • Human rights.
  • Representation of foreigners and foreign companies.
  • Tort law.
  • Preparation of documents for authentication.
  • Successful litigation in Bulgarian and International Courts.


Mr. Popov has legal partners in major cities in Bulgaria and in all six continents. He is recommended by a number of European embassies and the U.S. Embassy in Bulgaria.



  • Todorov v. Bulgaria

Mr. Popov represented Ivan Todorov who was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment in 1987, but was released in 1991. A few years after his release he moved to the United States.  In 2008 he visited Bulgaria, and was arrested in the Sofia airport and imprisoned to serve the remainder of his sentence. This case received a lot of news coverage throughout Bulgaria. In 2014, Mr. Popov obtained Mr. Todorov’s release in 2014.  Currently, Mr. Popov is seeking compensation from the Bulgarian government for Mr. Todorov’s imprisonment.


  • Vasilev v. Greece

Mr. Popov represented Alexander Vasilev, a Bulgarian citizen, and successfully sued the Greek government on his behalf. Mr. Vasilev appealed his life sentence in 2004.  The Greek court failed to set a date for a hearing until to 2007. Mr. Popov proved that the excessive length of the proceedings was unreasonable, his client was released and was able to recover damages.


  • Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church v. Bulgaria

This case was widely broadcasted in the media throughout Bulgaria. Mr. Popov represented several of the Bulgarian Orthodox Churches and its priests.  The Synod was unlawfully deprived of its property and its priests were denied their employment and compelled to accept the Patriarch’s leadership after introduction of the Religious Denominations Act of 2003. Mr. Popov successfully argued that this Act violated his client’s right to freedom of religion and helped them to recover damages.


  • Lautsi v. Italy

Ms. Soile Lautsi sued the Italian government claiming the appearance of crucifixes at her children’s school violated their rights. Mr. Popov intervened on behalf of Italian government at the European Court of Human Rights and argued that the crucifixes did not impose any religion on Ms. Lautsi or her children and did not violate any laws.  The European Court of Human Rights sided with the Italian government and Mr. Popov and allowed the Italian schools to continue displaying the crucifix.


  • Minev v. Bulgarian Supreme Judiciary Council (April and November, 2016)

Petko Minev is a prosecutor in Plovdiv who won a competition to be appointed as a judge in Plovdiv District court. Later on, Supreme Judicial Council received information regarding Mr. Minev’s moral qualities that make him unfit for the position. There were no specific facts or proven evidences that the information is correct. Nevertheless, Supreme Judicial Council denied his appointment and chose another candidate instead. Mr. Popov successfully argued  twice to the Bulgarian Supreme Court that the Supreme Judicial Council’s decisions to deny his appointment were without merit and illegal.  The Supreme Judicial Council’s decisions were overturned.


  • Minev v. Bulgarian Supreme Judiciary Council (June and November, 2016)

Petko Minev also won a competition to be appointed as of a prosecutor in Sofia District Prosecutor Office and his appointment was also denied by Supreme Judicial Council because of the same information.  Mr. Popov argued in the Bulgarian Supreme Court twice on behalf of Mr. Minev again, and proved for the forth time that the Supreme Judicial Council’s decisions were illegal and that his client was eligible for the appointment. The Supreme Judicial Council’s decisions were overturned.