According to Interpretative Decision No. 6 of 14 March 2014 in Commercial Case No. 6\/2013 of the General Assembly of the Civil and Commercial Chambers of the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria, ownership of the asset offered as security for a claim already brought is not a prerequisite for ordering an attachment of real property or an attachment of other assets.<\/p>\n
Where the conditions for security are met \u2014 the claim is admissible, appears well founded and needs to be secured \u2014 the law requires the court to grant security. The court\u2019s reasoning rests on the way a restraint on dealings with real property (a Bulgarian vazbrana<\/em>) is recorded: it is entered in the property registers against the defendant\u2019s name. If the defendant does not own the property, any dealings by the defendant purporting to dispose of it cannot be asserted against the true owner. Where the owner is a third party, the restraint does not take effect against that person, since no entry will have been made against their name.<\/p>\n There is extensive case law to the effect that a court hearing an application for interim security does not investigate title before ordering a restraint over real property. If, however, the claimant\u2019s own evidence shows that, when the court rules, the defendant does not own the particular property, the applicant has no legal interest in obtaining that restraint. Attaching someone else\u2019s real property would confer no benefit on the applicant.<\/p>\n Third parties whose rights are affected by a restraint on a particular property may appeal against the order imposing it.<\/p>\n This article does not constitute a legal opinion or legal advice concerning any particular situation or person. For assistance with a specific case, consult a lawyer who practises civil law.<\/em>
\n