<\/p>\n
The institute of acquisitive prescription<\/strong> aims to stabilize property relations by recognizing ownership upon prolonged, unequivocal and undisturbed possession. The specifics concerning state and municipal property<\/strong> stem from the distinction between public<\/strong> and private<\/strong> state\/municipal ownership and from the historical moratorium on acquisitive prescription<\/strong>, declared unconstitutional in 2022.<\/p>\n Property Act (ZS).<\/strong> Article 86 ZS categorically excludes acquisitive prescription for property constituting public state or municipal ownership<\/strong>. For all other properties (including private state\/municipal<\/strong> property) the general rules of acquisitive prescription under Article 79 ZS apply (ordinary\u201410 years; short\u20145 years where there is good faith and a valid legal ground (title)).<\/p>\n State Property Act (ZDS).<\/strong> The Act defines the two types of state ownership and provides that private state property<\/strong> may be disposed of and may be acquired by prescription<\/strong>, unless otherwise provided. Public state property<\/strong> is outside civil circulation and cannot be acquired by prescription<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Municipal Property Act (ZOS).<\/strong> Property and chattels constituting public municipal ownership<\/strong>, lands from the municipal land fund<\/strong>, and municipal forest territories<\/strong> cannot be acquired by prescription<\/strong>. For private municipal property<\/strong>, the rules of the Property Act apply.<\/p>\n Constitutional Court \u2014 Decision No. 3 of 24.02.2022 in constitutional case No. 16\/2021.<\/strong> The Court declared unconstitutional<\/strong> the moratorium\u2014effective for over 15 years\u2014by which the legislature suspended acquisitive prescription for private state and municipal<\/strong> property; the decision entered into force on 8 March 2022<\/strong> (three days after promulgation on 4 March 2022). The past effect of the suspension is not affected<\/strong>; prescription runs only prospectively<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) case law.<\/strong> After 1996 (the entry into force of ZDS and ZOS), acquisitive prescription is, in principle, admissible vis-\u00e0-vis private state\/municipal<\/strong> property, but its course was suspended during 31.05.2006\u201330.12.2017<\/strong> and 20.01.2018\u201307.03.2022<\/strong>. As of 08.03.2022<\/strong>, prescription runs again<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Public state and municipal property<\/strong> serves public needs and is outside civil circulation<\/strong>, therefore not acquirable by prescription<\/strong>. Typical examples include streets, squares, water bodies, public buildings, protected areas. For private state\/municipal property<\/strong>, the general rules of the Property Act apply unless a special statute provides otherwise. The boundary is determined by law<\/strong>, not by factual possession or act-issuing, which is why the public\/private<\/strong> qualification is a preliminary and decisive issue in any dispute.<\/p>\n Possession.<\/strong> Continuous, open, peaceful and unequivocal exercise of factual control with animus domini<\/strong> is required.<\/p>\n Period.<\/strong> Ordinary prescription\u201410 years<\/strong>; short prescription\u20145 years<\/strong> where there is good faith<\/strong> and a valid legal ground (title)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Good faith.<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n In 2006 the legislature suspended acquisitive prescription over private state\/municipal<\/strong> property through amendments to the Property Act, later repeatedly extended. In 2022 the Constitutional Court invalidated this regime for the future<\/strong>, while confirming that its past suspensive effect remains<\/strong>, i.e. the period 31.05.2006\u201307.03.2022<\/strong> does not<\/strong> count toward the prescriptive term. From 08.03.2022<\/strong> prescription starts or continues<\/strong> to run, depending on the facts. Courts follow this logic in declaratory actions under Art. 124 CPC in conjunction with Art. 79 ZS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Public property.<\/strong> There is an absolute prohibition<\/strong> of acquisitive prescription. Even intensive factual use does not mature into prescription; the state\/municipality may reclaim the property at any time.<\/p>\n Private state\/municipal property.<\/strong> Prescription is admissible if the requirements are met. Importantly, the 1996 reform introduced the public\/private divide, and from 01.06.1996<\/strong> prescription is, in principle, possible for private<\/strong> assets, with the moratorium periods excluded.<\/p>\n Ownership is recognized<\/strong> by a declaratory action<\/strong> under Art. 124 CPC in conjunction with Art. 79 ZS<\/strong>; 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\u2019s status at the relevant times, including whether it was public<\/strong>. If upheld, the judgment is entered in the register<\/strong> to be opposable to third parties.<\/p>\n Possession is proved factually: witness testimony, documents for payment of taxes and fees, utility contracts in the possessor\u2019s name, inspection protocols, expert reports. It is crucial to show animus domini<\/strong>, distinct from tolerated use, lease, or mere holding. For property of public entities, archival records on status over time are often required.<\/p>\n Public entities may invoke public ownership status<\/strong> (which excludes prescription); rely on interruption<\/strong> of possession through acts of official authority; reclaim the property; or prove that the possession was non-autonomous (mere detention)<\/strong>, e.g. under a contract. After 08.03.2022<\/strong>, the general interruption mechanisms also apply.<\/p>\n In Bulgarian law, acquisitive prescription over state and municipal property rests on a strict distinction. Public<\/strong> assets are absolutely non-acquirable<\/strong>. For private state\/municipal<\/strong> assets, prescription is possible<\/strong>, but the historical moratorium must be accounted for: following Constitutional Court Decision No. 3\/24.02.2022, it has no effect for the future<\/strong>, while the suspension period is not counted<\/strong>. The possessor must prove all elements and the statutory term under the Property Act; courts must precisely qualify the property\u2019s status and account for interruptions. Thus the system balances legal certainty in civil turnover with protection of public property.<\/p>\n1. Legal framework<\/h3>\n
2. Public vs. private state\/municipal ownership<\/h3>\n
3. Acquisitive prescription: elements and periods<\/h3>\n
4. The historical moratorium and its consequences<\/h3>\n
5. Admissibility and starting points<\/h3>\n
6. Procedural path to recognition<\/h3>\n
7. Evidentiary specifics<\/h3>\n
8. Defences of the state and municipalities<\/h3>\n
9. Conclusion<\/h3>\n