Under Interpretative Ruling No. 8 of 23 February 2016 in interpretative case No. 8\/2014 of the General Assembly of the Civil Divisions of the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation, an action under the second sentence of Article 53(2) of the Cadastre and Property Register Act as originally enacted, now Article 54(2), is admissible without prior administrative proceedings under the original Article 53(1) to identify omissions or errors on the cadastral map. A claim to ownership of a physically defined part of a parcel that was incorrectly surveyed as part of a neighbouring property on the cadastral plan or map, or was never surveyed as a separate property, is admissible even without prior administrative proceedings under the original Article 53(1), point 1 to correct the approved map and registers, or a prior action under the second sentence of the original Article 53(2), now Article 54(2).<\/p>\n
In that ruling the Court explained the nature of an action under Article 54(2). It is a positive declaratory action to establish title, so that the cadastral map can show the actual boundaries of ownership. Whether the action falls under Article 54(2) of the Act or Article 124(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure depends solely on the allegations establishing the claimant\u2019s legal interest. If that interest arises from an omission or inaccuracy in the recording of the boundaries on the map, Article 54(2) applies. If it rests on other allegations, Article 124(1) of the Code applies.<\/p>\n
The ruling also gives binding guidance on the statutory provisions. As a declaratory action concerning ownership, an action under the second sentence of the original Article 53(2) requires a legal interest. Article 2(5) presumes the basic cadastral data to be correct. The very fact that part of the claimant\u2019s land is shown as part of the defendant\u2019s property, or is not surveyed as an independent parcel, therefore establishes that interest: it creates the appearance that the defendant owns that part. Any ownership dispute does not depend on a refusal by the cadastral office. Where omissions or errors in the basic data on the cadastral map or in the register are connected with a dispute over a substantive right, they are corrected after a court resolves the dispute, under the second sentence of Article 53(2) as originally enacted, corresponding to Article 54(2) as amended in State Gazette No. 49 of 2014.<\/p>\n
Where the identity of the owner is undisputed, the purpose of the proceedings is to establish the spatial extent of ownership so that it can be accurately reflected on the cadastral map.<\/p>\n
This article is not a legal opinion or advice concerning a particular situation or person, and the author does not claim to cover the correct recording of properties on the cadastral map exhaustively. For assistance with a similar case, consult a lawyer.<\/em>
\n