Action to correct an omission or error on an approved cadastral map

Under paragraph 1, point 16 of the Bulgarian Cadastre and Property Register Act, “omissions or errors” are discrepancies between the boundaries and outlines of immovable properties shown on the cadastral map of an urbanised area and their actual configuration.

A positive declaratory action under Article 54(2) seeks correction of the map by rebutting the presumption under Article 2(5) that cadastral data are accurate as to the matters they record until the contrary is proved. This action is not a prerequisite for a declaratory ownership claim or an action seeking an order for the return of property. Its purpose is to obtain a binding judgment on whether the claimant owns the land on the grounds pleaded, as at the present time. Only in this way can the map reflect current ownership as required by Article 51. In assessing the facts, the court must bear in mind that an entry in the cadastral register gives public notice but never creates title: registration does not create rights in rem.

In Interpretative Ruling No. 8 of 23 February 2016 in case No. 8/2014, the General Assembly of the Civil Divisions of the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation explained that in an Article 54(2) action the court examines whether there is an omission or error in the approved map and decides who owns the disputed area. Resolving ownership requires examining the legal effects of the approved regulation plans, particularly any transfer of title to portions allocated to another plot under a plan. The substantive rules are found in the repealed Territorial and Settlement Planning Act, in force from 1973 to 2001, its repealed implementing regulations and the Spatial Development Act. The evidence must cover all successive regulatory changes, whether plot and street regulation plans were implemented, whether their expropriatory effect ceased, and any other facts that changed the boundaries. Relevant guidance is given in Interpretative Ruling No. 3 of 15 July 1993 in civil case No. 2/1993 of the Supreme Court’s General Assembly of Civil Divisions and Interpretative Ruling No. 3 of 28 March 2011 in interpretative case No. 3/2010 of the corresponding General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Cassation. Since regulation under the current Spatial Development Act does not itself expropriate property, paragraph 6(2) of its transitional provisions specifically addresses plot regulation plans that were in force but had not been implemented when the Act took effect. It fixed a period for implementation. On its expiry the plan’s expropriatory effect lapses automatically by operation of law, and ownership of the portions allocated under the plan returns to the owner of the property from which they were taken.

This article is not a legal opinion of attorney Mihail Tomov or a lawyer at Markova, Tomov and Partners or advice concerning a particular situation or person. For assistance with a claim to correct an omission or error on an approved cadastral map, consult an administrative lawyer.