Adverse Possession of State or Municipal Property (Bulgaria)

The institute of acquisitive prescription aims to stabilize property relations by recognizing ownership upon prolonged, unequivocal and undisturbed possession. The specifics concerning state and municipal property stem from the distinction between public and private state/municipal ownership and from the historical moratorium on acquisitive prescription, declared unconstitutional in 2022.

1. Legal framework

Property Act (ZS). Article 86 ZS categorically excludes acquisitive prescription for property constituting public state or municipal ownership. For all other properties (including private state/municipal property) the general rules of acquisitive prescription under Article 79 ZS apply (ordinary—10 years; short—5 years where there is good faith and a valid legal ground (title)).

State Property Act (ZDS). The Act defines the two types of state ownership and provides that private state property may be disposed of and may be acquired by prescription, unless otherwise provided. Public state property is outside civil circulation and cannot be acquired by prescription.

Municipal Property Act (ZOS). Property and chattels constituting public municipal ownership, lands from the municipal land fund, and municipal forest territories cannot be acquired by prescription. For private municipal property, the rules of the Property Act apply.

Constitutional Court — Decision No. 3 of 24.02.2022 in constitutional case No. 16/2021. The Court declared unconstitutional the moratorium—effective for over 15 years—by which the legislature suspended acquisitive prescription for private state and municipal property; the decision entered into force on 8 March 2022 (three days after promulgation on 4 March 2022). The past effect of the suspension is not affected; prescription runs only prospectively.

Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) case law. After 1996 (the entry into force of ZDS and ZOS), acquisitive prescription is, in principle, admissible vis-à-vis private state/municipal property, but its course was suspended during 31.05.2006–30.12.2017 and 20.01.2018–07.03.2022. As of 08.03.2022, prescription runs again.

2. Public vs. private state/municipal ownership

Public state and municipal property serves public needs and is outside civil circulation, therefore not acquirable by prescription. Typical examples include streets, squares, water bodies, public buildings, protected areas. For private state/municipal property, the general rules of the Property Act apply unless a special statute provides otherwise. The boundary is determined by law, not by factual possession or act-issuing, which is why the public/private qualification is a preliminary and decisive issue in any dispute.

3. Acquisitive prescription: elements and periods

Possession. Continuous, open, peaceful and unequivocal exercise of factual control with animus domini is required.

Period. Ordinary prescription—10 years; short prescription—5 years where there is good faith and a valid legal ground (title).

Good faith. Assessed at the time possession is acquired; the presence of a title valid in its outward form (e.g. an apparently regular but void contract) enables the short prescription.

4. The historical moratorium and its consequences

In 2006 the legislature suspended acquisitive prescription over private state/municipal property through amendments to the Property Act, later repeatedly extended. In 2022 the Constitutional Court invalidated this regime for the future, while confirming that its past suspensive effect remains, i.e. the period 31.05.2006–07.03.2022 does not count toward the prescriptive term. From 08.03.2022 prescription starts or continues to run, depending on the facts. Courts follow this logic in declaratory actions under Art. 124 CPC in conjunction with Art. 79 ZS.

5. Admissibility and starting points

Public property. There is an absolute prohibition of acquisitive prescription. Even intensive factual use does not mature into prescription; the state/municipality may reclaim the property at any time.

Private state/municipal property. Prescription is admissible if the requirements are met. Importantly, the 1996 reform introduced the public/private divide, and from 01.06.1996 prescription is, in principle, possible for private assets, with the moratorium periods excluded.

6. Procedural path to recognition

Ownership is recognized by a declaratory action under Art. 124 CPC in conjunction with Art. 79 ZS; the claimant bears the burden to prove possession and its attributes for the requisite period. Defendants are the respective state (through the regional governor/competent authority) or municipality. The court examines the property’s status at the relevant times, including whether it was public. If upheld, the judgment is entered in the register to be opposable to third parties.

7. Evidentiary specifics

Possession is proved factually: witness testimony, documents for payment of taxes and fees, utility contracts in the possessor’s name, inspection protocols, expert reports. It is crucial to show animus domini, distinct from tolerated use, lease, or mere holding. For property of public entities, archival records on status over time are often required.

8. Defences of the state and municipalities

Public entities may invoke public ownership status (which excludes prescription); rely on interruption of possession through acts of official authority; reclaim the property; or prove that the possession was non-autonomous (mere detention), e.g. under a contract. After 08.03.2022, the general interruption mechanisms also apply.

9. Conclusion

In Bulgarian law, acquisitive prescription over state and municipal property rests on a strict distinction. Public assets are absolutely non-acquirable. For private state/municipal assets, prescription is possible, but the historical moratorium must be accounted for: following Constitutional Court Decision No. 3/24.02.2022, it has no effect for the future, while the suspension period is not counted. The possessor must prove all elements and the statutory term under the Property Act; courts must precisely qualify the property’s status and account for interruptions. Thus the system balances legal certainty in civil turnover with protection of public property.