Declaratory claim for ownership under Bulgarian law
Under Art. 124(1) of the Bulgarian Civil Procedure Code (CPC), any person may bring a claim seeking judicial recognition of the existence or non-existence of a subjective right, provided that they have a legitimate legal interest. On this statutory basis rests the declaratory claim for ownership — one of the fundamental legal instruments for protecting property rights in Bulgaria. Unlike condemnatory claims, this type of action does not aim to compel behaviour, but solely to obtain official judicial confirmation of a disputed right.
The declaratory ownership claim is appropriate where a legal dispute exists regarding the title to a property, most often ownership, and the claimant seeks clarity and legal certainty rather than enforcement. Unlike revindication or negatory claims, the court is not asked to order restitution of possession or cessation of interference, but only to confirm who holds the right.
Typical scenarios include disputes between heirs where one party denies the other’s share, cases where a person claims an easement or other right over a neighbouring property and the owner seeks judicial denial of that claim, or situations where an owner in peaceful possession discovers that a notarial deed has been issued to a third party and seeks judicial confirmation of their own ownership. In all such cases, the declaratory claim serves as a preventive and stabilising legal mechanism 📑.
Types of declaratory ownership claims
Bulgarian law distinguishes between positive and negative declaratory claims, each serving a distinct defensive purpose.
Positive declaratory claim for ownership
With a positive declaratory claim, the claimant asks the court to establish that they are the holder of a specific property right vis-à-vis the defendant. This is among the most frequently used legal remedies where ownership is uncertain or contested, particularly when no factual circumstances justify a revindication or negatory action.
Where the dispute concerns real estate, the statement of claim is subject to mandatory registration in the Property Register under Art. 114(c) of the Ownership Act, ensuring enforceability against third parties. Active standing is granted to owners, holders of limited real rights (such as usufruct or building rights), co-owners, and creditors exercising rights under Art. 134 of the Obligations and Contracts Act. Passive standing lies with any person who disputes or denies the claimant’s right.
According to Interpretative Decision No. 8/2013 of the Supreme Court of Cassation, a declaratory ownership claim is admissible even where possession is held by the defendant. This gives the claimant procedural discretion to choose between declaratory and condemnatory protection.
To succeed, the claimant must prove:
- the existence of a legal interest, meaning that the right is disputed or threatened;
- the existence of the asserted property right.
The defendant may oppose the claim by denying the claimant’s standing or by proving a competing property right.
Negative declaratory claim for ownership
A negative declaratory claim is brought where the claimant seeks a court ruling that the defendant does not hold a specific property right vis-à-vis the claimant. This remedy is typically used defensively, for example to contest a wrongly issued notarial deed, or in enforcement proceedings where a third party asserts that seized property does not belong to the debtor.
In such cases, the claimant must establish their own right to the property, while the burden of proof shifts primarily to the defendant to demonstrate the alleged right. Active standing mirrors that of the positive declaratory claim, while passive standing lies with any person asserting the denied right, including persons treated as such under Art. 440 CPC.
Declaratory claims are particularly valuable where legal certainty is needed without escalating the dispute into factual confrontation. They are commonly used in inheritance disputes, unclear title histories, disputed easements, and overlapping registrations.
In BSLC’s practice, declaratory claims often form the foundation for subsequent legal actions, such as registrations, contract annulments, condemnatory claims, or damages. Our approach includes prior assessment of legal interest, analysis of title-generating facts, and a focused evidentiary strategy to ensure that judicial recognition produces long-term legal stability for the client 📑.
Declaratory claims concerning limited real rights
Under Art. 124(1) CPC, declaratory claims may also concern limited real rights, such as usufruct, building rights, rights of passage (easements), or rights of use over another person’s property. These claims are appropriate where a dispute exists regarding the existence or scope of such a right, without seeking restitution or removal of possession.
This category is especially relevant in easement disputes — for example, where one party claims a right of access across neighbouring land and the owner disputes its existence. Similar disputes arise between co-owners where one claims exclusive use rights without a formal allocation under Art. 32(2) of the Ownership Act, or in cases involving inherited properties, shared access routes, or disputed building rights.
The defining feature of such declaratory claims is that only legal recognition is sought. No behavioural order is requested from the court, which distinguishes them from revindication and negatory actions. Where the subject concerns real estate, the claim must again be registered under Art. 114(c) of the Ownership Act.
For the claim to succeed, the claimant must establish:
- a legitimate legal interest, demonstrated by denial or uncertainty created by the defendant’s conduct;
- a factual or legal basis for the limited real right, such as a notarial deed, contract, inheritance document, public act, or long-term exercise of the right.
The defendant may challenge standing, deny the right, or assert a competing real right.
In BSLC’s experience, such claims are decisive in resolving long-standing disputes between neighbours, co-owners, and former spouses. We place particular emphasis on property identification, historical usage, and evidentiary consistency, as registration of the claim creates enforceability against third parties and prevents future disposals 🛡️.
Ownership claims based on acquisitive prescription (adverse possession)
Under Art. 79(1) of the Ownership Act, a person who has exercised possession over immovable property continuously, openly, and unequivocally for ten years may acquire ownership through acquisitive prescription. A claim based on adverse possession is brought as a declaratory claim under Art. 124(1) CPC, seeking judicial recognition that ownership has been acquired through long-term possession.
This type of claim commonly arises in situations involving inherited property used exclusively by one heir, properties acquired under informal contracts, or land cultivated and enclosed without objection by the formal owner for extended periods.
The claimant must prove:
- factual possession consistent with ownership (maintenance, enclosure, leasing, tax payments);
- publicity and lack of secrecy or violence;
- uninterrupted duration — ten years under ordinary prescription, or five years for a good-faith possessor with a valid but defective title under Art. 70(1) OA;
- absence of interruption through successful legal action by the owner.
Procedurally, the claim is filed before the district court where the property is located and must be registered in the Property Register under Art. 114(c) OA to ensure opposability to third parties.
The defendant is typically the formally registered owner or any person disputing the claimant’s right. A favourable judgment has declaratory effect but serves as the legal basis for issuing a constative notarial deed through court procedure, enabling full registration of ownership.
At BSLC, we treat adverse possession claims with particular caution, analysing cadastral data, title history, witness testimony, tax records, and risks related to restitution, succession, or identity of property 🧾.
Possessory claims for protection of possession over real estate in Bulgaria
Under Art. 75 of the Bulgarian Ownership Act, any person who has exercised possession over immovable property or a limited real right for a period exceeding six months is entitled to independent legal protection through a possessory (possession-based) claim. This mechanism protects factual control, not ownership, and applies regardless of whether the possessor holds a valid title. The legislative purpose is to prevent self-help and preserve public order by ensuring that disputes over possession are resolved judicially rather than through force or unilateral actions.
Bulgarian law distinguishes between two principal possessory claims, each addressing a different type of disturbance of possession.
Possessory claim under Art. 75 of the Ownership Act
The claim under Art. 75 OA protects long-term possession exercised for more than six months. It must be filed within a six-month preclusive period starting from the moment the possession was disturbed. The disturbance may take the form of complete dispossession or partial interference — such as fencing off access, blocking entry, or imposing physical obstacles.
The defendant may be any person who currently holds the property at the time the claim is filed, even if they were not the original perpetrator of the disturbance. The court does not examine ownership rights, contractual titles, or legal grounds for possession. Its sole task is to determine:
- whether the claimant exercised possession;
- whether that possession was disturbed;
- whether the claim was filed within the statutory deadline.
If these elements are proven, the court orders restoration of possession, regardless of who is the true owner. This strict separation from ownership disputes makes the possessory claim a rapid and effective remedy ⚖️.
Possessory claim under Art. 76 of the Ownership Act
The claim under Art. 76 OA offers protection even for short-term possession or mere holding (e.g. by tenants or users), provided that the dispossession occurred violently or clandestinely. Unlike Art. 75, there is no minimum possession period. What matters is the unlawful manner of dispossession — physical force, threats, or covert actions such as changing locks without notice.
This claim must also be filed within six months, but it may only be brought against the person who committed the violent or secret act. As with Art. 75, ownership is irrelevant; the court focuses exclusively on the factual sequence of events.
Both possessory claims are condemnatory in nature, are governed by special proceedings under Arts. 355–361 CPC, and fall under the jurisdiction of the district court where the property is located. They cannot be joined with ownership claims, as their legal nature is fundamentally different.
In practice, BSLC frequently handles cases where possessory protection must be combined strategically with subsequent ownership claims or tort actions under Art. 45 of the Obligations and Contracts Act, particularly where damages have resulted from unlawful dispossession 🧾.
Good-faith and bad-faith possession under Bulgarian law
The legal regime governing good-faith and bad-faith possessors is set out in Arts. 70–74 of the Ownership Act and plays a critical role in ownership disputes, particularly concerning improvements, fruits, and retention rights.
Under Art. 70(1) OA, a possessor is considered good-faith if they possess the property on the basis of a legal ground capable of transferring ownership, without knowing that their transferor was not the owner. This requires both an objectively valid title (e.g. a notarial deed or a court judgment under Art. 19(3) OCC) and subjective good faith at the moment of acquisition. Subsequent discovery of defects does not retroactively eliminate good faith.
A good-faith possessor is entitled, under Art. 72 OA, to compensation for improvements that have increased the value of the property. The assessment is made as of the date of the court’s decision and reflects actual market value enhancement, not merely expenses incurred. Temporary or removable structures are excluded.
Crucially, Art. 72(3) OA grants the good-faith possessor a right of retention, allowing them to refuse surrender of the property until compensated. This right operates similarly to a pledge, securing the improvement claim.
However, once an ownership claim is filed against a good-faith possessor, they are legally treated as bad-faith from that moment onward, particularly regarding liability for fruits and use — a legal fiction established by Interpretative Decision No. 29/1962 of the Supreme Court. This shift serves legal certainty, even if subjective good faith persists.
A bad-faith possessor, under Art. 74 OA, is entitled to compensation only up to the lower of the cost of improvements or the increase in value and has no right of retention. They owe fruits for the entire period of unlawful possession.
Bulgarian case law, including Decree No. 6/1974, recognises a category of “good-faith improvers” — formally bad-faith possessors who may still receive full compensation due to equitable considerations, such as performance under a preliminary contract or tacit tolerance by the owner.
At BSLC, we assess good faith at acquisition, evidentiary strength, valuation methodology, and strategic invocation of retention rights as part of a broader litigation approach 🧾.
Proving improvements in ownership disputes and partition proceedings
Proving improvements under Art. 72 OA requires strict evidentiary compliance and careful differentiation between categories of expenditure. Bulgarian courts consistently apply the criteria developed in Supreme Court case law.
According to Interpretative Decision No. 33/2009 of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the relevant moment for assessing increased value is the date of the court’s ruling. Improvements must therefore be permanent, completed, and objectively increase market value. Courts rely heavily on expert valuations comparing the property before and after the improvements.
Under Interpretative Decision No. 29/1962, the right of retention extends to fruits generated after the filing of an ownership claim, reinforcing the possessor’s leverage. However, exercising retention does not suspend limitation periods for the underlying monetary claim.
Key evidentiary requirements include:
- proof of actual construction or works through invoices, contracts, witnesses, and expert opinions;
- permanence and physical integration into the property;
- existence of a title capable of conferring ownership, relevant to good faith;
- absence of objection by the owner, which may elevate a possessor’s status under Art. 74(2) OA;
- explicit invocation of both improvement claims and retention rights in the proceedings.
BSLC structures improvement claims proactively, preparing expert mandates, valuation strategies, and procedural safeguards to ensure enforceability and proportional recovery 🧱.
Restoration of ownership through restitution
Restitution represents a distinct mode of acquiring ownership, rooted not in transactions or possession, but in legislative intent. In Bulgaria, restitution laws were enacted after 1989 to reverse property nationalisations incompatible with democratic principles.
Under Art. 10(1) of the Agricultural Land Ownership and Use Act, ownership of nationalised agricultural land may be restored to former owners or their heirs through administrative proceedings. Restitution typically requires proof of prior ownership, absence of legal impediments, and issuance of an administrative decision, often accompanied by cadastral documentation.
Where restoration occurs through newly formed plots under §4l of the Transitional Provisions, ownership arises through a mayoral order, which has constitutive effect and replaces a notarial deed. Without this order and accompanying sketch, ownership cannot be registered or enforced.
In cases of restitution ex lege under the Law on Restitution of Nationalised Property, ownership arises automatically upon the law’s entry into force, provided statutory conditions are met. In such cases, ownership must still be proven through general evidentiary means in court.
Disputes often arise between restitution beneficiaries and third parties who acquired property later, whether through transactions or adverse possession. Legal protection may involve declaratory or revindication claims, and courts will assess the validity and priority of competing titles.
Restituted property must be registered under Art. 112 OA to ensure enforceability against third parties. Failure to register frequently leads to transactional and enforcement complications.
BSLC provides end-to-end restitution support, from administrative filings to judicial defence against adverse claims 🏛️.
Loss of ownership under Bulgarian law
Ownership in Bulgaria is preserved until transferred under legally recognised mechanisms, as stated in Art. 77 OA. Loss of ownership never occurs automatically.
Ownership may be lost through voluntary transfer (sale, donation, exchange), inheritance, adverse possession by another party, confiscation through criminal or civil forfeiture, or expropriation for public purposes under Art. 17(3) of the Constitution and relevant statutes.
Adverse possession represents the most common involuntary loss, resulting from prolonged inactivity by the owner. Confiscation and expropriation involve unilateral state action, subject to judicial oversight and compensation.
Special cases include loss of ownership over buildings erected unlawfully on another’s land under Art. 92 OA, where ownership may vest in the landowner absent agreement.
The guiding principle is that ownership is lost only through explicit legal events, not neglect alone. Active exercise and registration of rights are therefore essential 🛡️.
How much would the legal fees be if I want to file a property ownership lawsuit in Bulgaria?
The cost of filing an ownership claim consists of court fees, legal representation, expert opinions, registration costs, and ancillary expenses.
Under Art. 71 CPC, court fees for pecuniary claims are 4% of the claim value, determined by market value, not tax valuation. For a property valued at BGN 100,000, the fee is BGN 4,000, payable upon filing unless relief is granted under Art. 83 CPC.
Attorney fees are governed by Regulation No. 1/2004, setting minimum fees based on claim value. Actual fees often exceed the minimum depending on complexity, duration, number of parties, and instances. Success-based components may be agreed.
Additional costs include expert fees, mandatory registration under Art. 114 OA, and translation or notarisation where applicable.
Successful claimants may recover reasonable costs from the opposing party. Conversely, unsuccessful parties bear the opponent’s costs.
At BSLC, we provide advance cost assessments and litigation budgeting to ensure informed decision-making 💼.
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
