Problems and possible solutions.
- Ivan Nikolaev, attorney-at-law,
Content
One of the big nightmares of buyers of "green" properties is not completing the building due to financial difficulties of the builder or due to his bankruptcy. The latter is even perceived as fatal for the investment of the owners of independent objects in the building. The statistics[1], although ambiguous, does not reveal a different picture. The building permits issued in the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 for residential buildings, according to the number of dwellings in them, are for 15,848, 17,264, 18,157, 24,969, and 35,526 units, respectively. independent objects for residential use. But for the same years, the homes put into operation were 9,993, 7,806, 9,342, 8,384 and 8,136, respectively. The difference, respectively, was 5,855, 9,458, 8,815 and a staggering 16,585 and 27,390 homes. In other words, if no building permits have been issued for 2019, an unspecified number of buildings with 68,103 detached dwellings in them remain to be completed and commissioned in the coming years, with building permits issued in the period 2014 – 2018 Such a building fund, if separated, is sufficient to house a regional city the size of Pleven[2]. However, statistics cannot give an answer to the simple question - how many buildings have been completed. But statistically it would also be wrong to say that all of the buildings started will be completed and put into operation/get occupancy permit. It is likely that many of them will become those ghostly skeletons that we have long taken for granted and an invariable part of the appearance of the urban environment.
I. The Gordian Knot
Perhaps the most common form of negotiation when buying residential properties "on the green" is by signing preliminary contracts with the client, without transferring the right to build or ideal parts of the ownership of the land on which it is built or the right to build , at the time of confession of the transaction (the preliminary contract). In this form of contract, buyers are effectively financing the future construction of the building, and before construction begins, they can only look up and imagine where their future detached housing would be, without receiving anything else in return. In some cases, transfer of ideal parts is not included in the subject of the preliminary contract at all.
Buyers under the preliminary contracts are not participants in the construction process. According to Art. 160, para. 1 of Spatial Development Act (SDA), these are the assignor, the builder, the designer, the consultant, the natural person exercising technical control for the "Constructive" part, the technical manager and the supplier of machines, facilities and technological equipment. Buyers under the preliminary contracts are not also contracting authorities, because according to Art. 161, para. 1 of the SDA the contracting party is the owner of the property, the person to whom the right to build on someone else's property has been established, and the person who has the right to build on someone else's property by virtue of law. There is no coverage of the concept of "contractor" in the sense of the SDA and the concept of "contractor" in the construction contract in civil law[3].
When construction stops, whether due to the fault of the builder, whether due to the behavior of other participants in the construction, or due to other objective reasons, purchasers under preliminary contracts cannot legally, by exercising their subjective rights, directly influence positively the resumption of work. Pre-contract buyers can only finance, but even this would sometimes be unwise due to financial difficulties of construction participants and is subject to separate contractual obligations and special judgement. Other obstacles can be the cancellation of the building permit, illegal construction in deviation from the approved projects, legislative amendments and others that go beyond the scope of the study.
Another danger, hanging like a sword of Damocles tied to a horse's hair, over the interests of buyers, are the deadlines for the completion of the construction - three years after the entry into force of the construction permit, the construction must be started, and in five years - the rough construction must be completed (art. 153, para. 2 of SDA). If the deadlines are missed, according to Art. 153, para. 4 of the SDA, the building permit can be recertified only once within three months of the expiration of the term, and a new term begins to run after the renewal. The danger is even greater "hair to break" if a building permit was not requested at all, and the preliminary contracts were signed only on the basis of the approved investment projects - in this case, a one-year period expires for the applicant to request its issuance (Art. 145, para. 4 of SDA). On the other hand, if it is agreed in the preliminary contracts transfer of ideal parts of the right of construction, or if the role of the contracting authority arises from its capacity as a superintendent, attention should be paid to whether the same is not time-barred or is in danger of being, if the construction is not completed during the five-year period (Art. 67, Para. 1 of the Ownership Act (OA). However, the term can be suspended on the grounds specified in Art. 115 of the Obligations and Contracts Act (OCA)[4], and for subsequent acquirers it runs from the moment from which it also runs for their grantor, namely from the entry into force of the building permit, since they derive rights from the original superintendent and cannot be in a more favorable position than him[5].
So outlined, the legal issues facing buyers are a kind of Gordian knot when construction stops. It may never be untied, rendering the project void, the building permit void, the right to build time-barred, and the entire greenfield buyers' investment "burnt." Outside the scope of this article, the questions about the responsibility of the builder and/or the contractor for non-fulfillment of the contracts concluded with the buyers, in the case of non-fulfillment of the obligations by the former, the cancellation of the contracts, as well as the realization of their responsibility in the event of forced execution or in bankruptcy proceedings. The article aims to "cut" the knot, exploring the possibility of "green" buyers under pre-contracts to complete the construction of the building, as contractors.
II. The contracting authority – the master of the process
The contracting authority can be defined as a "main participant"[6], as it is the initiator of any construction project, as well as provides it with financial, human and material resources, according to the argument of Art. 161, para. 1, ex. second from SDA. It is the contracting authority who has the right, within the law, to dictate the terms[7]. The individual contractor is the main "user" of the finished construction "product". In view of this, it is he who should organize the entire process. The contracting authority organizes the conclusion of contracts and indirectly exercises control over design and construction. It can be assumed that the contracting authority really occupies a special place among the other participants in the construction and investment project, but in view of the equality of its contractual relations with the other participants, even if we do not perceive it as a "main participant", we should assume that the contracting authority is at least "first among equals" - primus inter pares[8]. But even as first among equals, the client is a participant in the undertaking, with legally regulated rights and obligations, in contrast to "green" buyers, who are third parties to the construction process.
III. The buyer becomes the contracting authority
In the hypothesis, when purchasers under preliminary contracts conclude a second contract, which transfers to them ideal parts of the right to build or of the ownership of the land on which it is being built, they become contracting parties pursuant to Art. 161, para. 1 of SDA already at the time of confessing the transaction. In this, albeit rare, scenario, the buyers (contractors) authorize the main contractor to act on their behalf, in accordance with the rule that their relations are expressly regulated by a written contract in notarized form, according to Art. 183, para. 1 of SDA. With the acquisition of the real right of construction, respectively the right of ownership, pursuant to the legal norm of Art. 161, para. 1 SDA, the superintendent (owner) ex lege also acquires the derivative the quality of "contractor". The latter, based on Art. 148, para. 4 SDA, legitimizes him as an entity that should be entered in the construction permit, and in the presence of an already issued construction permit, substantiates his active legitimation to request such entry[9]. This more favorable position gives buyers (contractors) the opportunity to ask the cancellation of the contract with the defective builder when construction stops, and the conclusion of a new one with a new builder. Their bond relationship with the non-performing party should be settled in a separate process not affecting the construction.
IV. The preliminary contract - the foundation of the construction
In practice, the stipulation that buyers will acquire ideal parts of the right to build or of the land within a certain period after the completion of the building has been imposed. Under this hypothesis, prior to completion of rough construction, purchasers under pre-contracts have no ability to influence construction, as they are third parties to the process. They can only finance construction.
In this common case, the building has reached a certain stage, but by argument from Art. 181, para. 2 of the SDA, there are no independent entities in it. The options for buyers when the builder has stopped construction before the building reaches the rough construction stage are extremely limited. By virtue of their prior contracts and the law, buyers are not construction participants. Their legal relationship arises only with the party to the contract - this is most often the client, who has the real right to construction or ownership of the land. Whether construction will continue or stop depends on his will. Outside the legal possibilities of the buyers are to oblige the party under the preliminary contract to "make" the builder finish the building, or to request a contract with a new builder.
Buyers cannot request the declaration of their preliminary contracts as final in accordance with Art. 19, para. 3 of the OCA, since the sale of a future thing produces an obligatory action from the date of its conclusion, and a real-translative action - from the occurrence of the thing, to the extent that if the building is not built in rough construction, no independent objects have arisen[10]. The request of the purchasers would be justified only after the completion of the building in rough construction, as only then there would be objects arising to be transferred to them.
The question arouses interest whether purchasers under preliminary contracts, where the building is not completed in rough construction, but where it is stipulated in the contracts that at some point they will be transferred ideal parts of the landed property or of the right to build, can ask for partial performance, i.e. that only ideal parts of the respective right be transferred to them. The principle answer to this question cannot be unequivocal, since under Art. 20 of the OCA, the interpretation of the contracts should be carried out in view of the actual will of the parties, and the parties can freely determine the individual provisions (Article 9 of the OCA). On the other hand, however, in practice it has become necessary that the negotiation of an obligation to transfer an ideal part is tied to the transfer of an object in the building that was built on the property, i.e. that a suspensive condition exists. If in the individualization of the subject of the transaction, when specifying the residence - an independent object in a building, the commonly encountered expression "accompanying" ideal parts is used, as well as when a separate price is not agreed for them, it is assumed that the buyer cannot demand transfer of ideal parts before the transfer of the independent object because they follow it and not the other way around. In this case, the buyer cannot request that the preliminary contract be declared final in accordance with Art. 19, para. 3 of the OCA in this part[11]. It is also in this direction Decision No. 1101 of 1961 under city decree No. 3086/61, IV year o. of the Supreme Court, which says that upon a claim for the conclusion of a final contract under Art. 19 of the OCA, the court can only issue a decision to reject the claim or a decision to enter into a final contract corresponding to the preliminary contract. The court is not empowered to order the conclusion of a final contract only for part of the property subject to the preliminary contract, depending on the plaintiff's performance. On the other hand, the Supreme Court accepts[12], that the said decision has a different meaning, namely that if the acceptor has fulfilled only part of his obligation, the contract cannot be declared final for the part for which there is fulfillment. The court accepts that the preliminary contract can be declared final only for that part of the promised property that is the property of the promisor at the time of registration of the claim. This conclusion is also supported by the provision of Art. 66 of the OCA, which allows the fulfillment of the obligation in parts. Next, with the consent of the creditor, partial performance may be accepted when full performance has become impossible, with a corresponding reduction of the obligation of the party in good standing (the buyer), according to Art. 89 of the OCA. Assuming that the claim under Art. 19, para. 3 of the OCA is unfounded in case of partial implementation is without any support in the law, thus the protection of the buyer in good standing would be refused, which conclusion is legally and logically unacceptable[13].
Here you need to open the bracket that buyers under the preliminary contracts can request their declaration as final when the party to them is the person who has real rights over the property, on the basis of an argument from Art. 363 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). If negotiated with a person who is not the owner, the preliminary agreement is not void[14], but it can be declared final only for that part of the promised property that is owned by the promisor at the time of the registration of the claim[15], and if the seller is not the owner of the property, the claim will not be upheld[16].
Therefore, in order to secure the rights of the purchasers under the pre-contracts, it is necessary to expressly mention ideal parts of the land or the right to build, with a separate fixed price, and a condition that the ideal parts will be transferred to them in due course, regardless of whether they are transferred to them independent objects at that moment, as well as a party to a contract to be a person with real rights on the property.
V. Rod in the wheels - the disagreements between the co-owners
As stated, if there is a prepared and approved investment project, but the issuance of a construction permit is not requested within one year, the projects lose their effect and a new approval must be requested (Art. 145, Para. 4 of the SDA). This sanction for the inaction of the investors may not seem serious at first glance, but in certain cases the very preparation, coordination and approval of the projects can turn out to be a Sisyphean effort. Another serious problem can be the loss of validity of the construction permit, when the completion of the rough construction has not been ascertained by an act of the administration within the five-year period from its issuance. In this case, by virtue of the law Title to detached objects may have arisen but not been established, and this may also be the case in court proceedings[17]. If this is not established, as well as if this happened within the five-year limitation period under Art. 67, para. 1 of the OA, the investment of the buyers under the preliminary contracts may be an increment in favor of the founder of the construction right. On the next place, the buyers may end up owning the land, but the building permit has lapsed due to non-commencement of construction within a three-year period from its issuance (Art. 153, para. 2, item 1 of SDA), as the terms specified in the law are exclusive and are not subject to suspension or interruption[18].
In the case of an expired building permit, it is necessary to issue a new one to complete the residential building, but this requires the complete unanimity of the actions of the co-owners. The norm of Art. 183, para. 1 of the SDA is imperative and the same requires the existence of a contract in notarial form between all co-owners of the real estate in which construction is planned. Compliance with the requirements of Art. 183 SDA are absolutely necessary for a person to legitimately acquire the quality of a contracting authority[19]. Contrary to the provision of Art. 183 SDA, provided for in Art. 38, para. 3 and 4 and Art. 39, para. 2 SDA in the case of reconstructions and changes of purpose, the consents of the respective interested owners are not relevant in relation to the acquisition of the status of the contracting authority, but only in relation to the legality of the procedure[20], but these exceptions go beyond the commented hypothesis. Under the current regulations, multiple contractors can act jointly by making decisions, signing contracts with other construction participants and acts under Regulation No. 3. There is no obstacle to the principals authorizing one of them to act as a direct representative and to perform the actions in the name and on behalf of and for all[21].
Problems arise in the event that one of the co-owners of the land or the right to build refuses to enter into a contract in notarial form with the other owners, according to Art. 183, para. 1 of SDA. In this case, the building permit would be unlawfully issued[22], and what was built on its basis – illegal and subject to removal (art. 225, para. 2, item 2 of SDA). It would also be difficult to implement construction based on the exceptions provided for in Art. 183, para. 4 of the SDA, requiring the cumulative prerequisites: 1. the purpose of the property is for low-rise or villa development, as well 2. to be present a) the realization b) the initiation or in) the possession of the right for the respective construction by the other co-owners. The first two alternatives to the second premise are inapplicable in the commented hypothesis – unstarted construction, or with an expired construction permit, but started by all co-owners. Unfortunately, the practice also denies the third hypothesis - the same is inapplicable if the co-owners do not establish a mutual right of construction, which is actually not a deviation from the imperative provision of Art. 183, para. 1 of SDA[23].
VI. Reaching consensus
If we assume that the co-owners of the land, or of the right to build, after a purchase "on the green" are completely unknown to each other, it can easily be assumed that they will face problems in self-organization. Some of them may act purposefully against the general interest in completing construction, and others may simply be passive - in either case, if planning permission is to be sought, the obstacle may prove insurmountable.
The co-owners can, first of all, carry out a judicial division of the property according to the order of Art. 341 et seq. of the CPC, by buying out the shares of those who prevent the issuance of a building permit. This is also permissible if there is co-ownership of the right to build, when the construction is not done[24]. If there is co-ownership on the land, some of the owners can also invoke the acquisitive limitation on the ideal parts of the ownership right of the others[25]. The acquisition of the right to build by statute of limitations is also admissible[26]. Finally, there is the question of whether it is possible to invoke the statute of limitations in the case of a preliminary contract, if the proceedings under Art. 19, para. 3 of the OCA, as a positive answer to this question they give Decision No. 40 of 04.07.2017 under city decree No. 3171/2016, year of the year, II year of the of the Supreme Court and Decision No. 1711 of 14.12.2000 under City Decree No. 293/2000, IV year of the Supreme Court.
Upon reaching agreement between all co-owners, a building permit can be issued and construction can be carried out. However, there is also the possibility that the contracting authorities "disguise" the volume of their rights, and establish a construction right in a larger volume. In this case, the building permit would be unlawfully issued[27], and what was built on its basis – illegal (Article 225, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the SDA), as was stated. On the other hand, the volume of rights above the right of construction held by the founders will be acquired incrementally by the non-participating owners[28].
VII. Tearing the hair
The processes of declaring the preliminary contracts as final, the execution of a judicial division and the reference to the acquisitive limitation can protect the rights of buyers "on the green" with a view to acquiring property rights, but have no relation to the deadlines for requesting a building permit (one year from the approval of the projects - 145, para. 4 of the SDA), for the start of construction (three years from the issuance of the permit - art. 153, para. 2, item 1 of the SDA), five years to complete the rough construction (Art. 153, Para. 2, Item 1 of the SDA). As already noted, these terms are exclusive and not subject to suspension or interruption. According to Art. 153, para. 4 of the SDA, the construction permit can be recertified three months after its expiration, for another term, but even this does not guarantee its compliance, especially if the civil proceedings discussed so far have not been completed. After the construction permit has lost its validity, there is a legal possibility for the contracting authorities to start a new procedure, with a new request for the issuance of a corresponding construction permit, after fulfilling all the legal requirements for this[29]. Here they can choose either to proceed with the re-approval of the project or to make the appropriate changes to it, but before submitting it for approval and approval.
A suspension of the time limits provided for in the said provisions can be achieved in the appeal of the building permit, as noted in Decision No. 1810 of 20.03.2018 under Adm. d. No. 6897/2017 of the Administrative Court - Sofia-city, because the dispute proceedings represent an objective obstacle to the construction, as it is beyond the will of the parties. This view cannot be accepted uncritically, unless orders were expressly issued to stop and prohibit access to constructions under Art. 224, para. 1 and 5, and under Art. 224a, para. 1 and 5 of SDA. Separately, there is the issue of the active legitimization of the persons with the right to appeal - generally speaking, these are the holders of real rights over the property (Art. 149, paras. 1 and 2 of the SDA), and the buyers "on the green" are not of this category circle of interested persons before acquiring property rights. But even if this is in principle an indisputable legal position, the lack of legitimacy should be confirmed precisely in the appeal process.
VIII. A breath of air. Rough construction.
By argument of Art. 181, para. 2 of the SDA the moment at which the right to build is transformed into a right of ownership of a building or separate parts of it is when the building is built to the stage of rough construction in the sense of § 5, item 46 of the SP of SDA, namely, this is a building or structure on which the enclosing walls and the roof have been completed, without or with varying degrees of completed finishing works. Upon completion of the building in rough construction, the separate objects arise in legal peace and become suitable for transfer transactions by their owners.
For the certification of this circumstance, a protocol issued by the municipal (district) administration is expressly required, according to Art. 181, para. 2 of SDA, and not the issuance of a deed. model 14 (Construction acceptance act), according to Ordinance No. 3/2003 on drawing up acts and protocols during construction, as is often wrongly stated. The protocols issued on the basis of the cited ordinance do not prevent the establishment of the completion of the object and have no connection with it, but only and only concern the construction process, the participants in it and their relationships.[30] The degree of completion of the construction can be established in a judicial process and with all the evidence admissible under the CPC - written, oral, expert conclusions, which should be assessed by the court in their totality[31], including in the proceedings under Art. 19, para. 3 of the OCA for concluding a final contract, as stated.
Once the rough construction is reached, the danger of the building right being extinguished, or the building permit losing its validity, is avoided. After this moment, the way to the complete completion of the building is opened for the owners of independent objects, such as the decision under what legal organizational form will be performed it is a matter of judgment. This, from one suffers it could be the condominium, which arises at the moment when floors or parts of floors, in a building built in rough construction, become the property of different legal entities[32]. The condominium, however, can take decisions on the issues concerning the completion of the building with the majority specified in art. 17, para. 2 of Condominium Ownership Management Act (COMA), which can be at least with a majority of more than 50 percent ideal parts of the common parts. Owners can also act as owners association, if the founders are owners representing no less than 67 percent of the common parts of the condominium, according to Art. 25, para. 3 of COMA. There is no obstacle for the owners to establish commercial or civil society under OCA. The latter can also carry out the construction, since the owners, as contractors, can also act as builders in the process, under arg. from Art. 163a, para. 5 of the SDA.
IX. The cost of construction
For the completion of the building and its commissioning, respectively obtaining a permit for use, it is necessary to carry out the construction in accordance with the approved project, as well as to comply with the procedure and requirements regulated in Art. Art. 175-178 of SDA. The finishing works on the building may not actually be carried out by all floor owners, since by virtue of the already issued building permit, each contractor has the rights under it, subject to compliance with the approved project. Here comes the question of the responsibility of those not involved in the process, and the continued financing of construction.
In the hypothesis when the apartment owners have actually taken actions to carry out construction and installation works, it should be assumed that the hypothesis of conducting another's work without authority, as those who paid the expenses and undertook the work in this case acted not only in favor of someone else's interest, but also in favor of their own interest. In the cases of conducting foreign business without a power of attorney, if there is approval from the person in whose interest the work is undertaken /preliminarily by decision of a general meeting or subsequent/, relations should be regulated according to Art. 62 OCA. If the improvements were carried out without a decision being taken by the general meeting, according to the provision of art. 61, para. 2 OCA the manager who carried out the construction can claim from the other owners of objects in the condominium only the corresponding part of the expenses incurred, up to the amount of the enrichment, and only if the work /the completed construction/ is taken appropriately. If the common parts are improved against the will of the other co-owners, the responsibility of the latter can be sought only according to the rules of Art. 59 of the OCA, which coincide with those under Art. 61, para. 2 OCA[33]. For the successful conduct of a submitted pursuant to Art. 61, para. 2 of the OCA action against the plaintiff, in accordance with the provision of art. 154, para. 1 of the CPC is to establish[34], that: 1. has undertaken foreign work[35], 2. that the work is undertaken appropriately, that it is well managed[36], 3. that it was also carried out in one's own interest, 4. as well as that as a result of it the defendant has enriched himself in the amount of the sums sought by them[37]. Proving the claim, with proper documentation of expenses incurred, as well as with adherence to the approved projects, should not be difficult. Practically the same claim can be brought against each of the apartment owners not participating in the construction and installation works. This may continue even after the building is put into operation/receipt of the use permit, but already with the aim of reparing the costs incurred by some of the owners.
X. I welded a building without walls, left a building of glass
The purchase of real estate "on the green" can turn out to be an extremely profitable investment. However, the protection of the interests of the buyers requires judgment regarding the risks faced by the client-builder. The conclusion of a preliminary contract for the purchase and sale of a property should also be carefully considered, and if necessary, a renegotiation should be carried out not so much on the financial parameters as on the deferred conditions for the transfer of ownership - an independent object and common parts of the building, as well as ideal parts of the ownership of the land or the right to build. Completion of the project started may go through many legal battles, but this does not mean that the original client is indispensable, or that the disagreement between the co-owners is insurmountable. With their good organization, "green" buyers can overcome the seemingly intractable problems of abandoned construction. If this happens more often, we can hope that ghost constructions will decrease, and maybe one day we will forget that there were such ones on our street.
Ivan NIKOLAEV, attorney-at-law
[1] National Statistical Institute, Statistical Handbook - 2018. Sofia, 2018, pp. 204-205 and National Statistical Institute, Statistical Handbook - 2019. Sofia, 2019, pp. 202-203.
[2] According to DG GRAO data as of 15.11.2019.
[3] Milkov, P., Contract system in construction. Sofia: Trud i Pravo Publishing House, 2014, p. 124.
[4] Decision No. 9 of 29.02.2016 under city decree No. 4247/2015, year k, II year o. of the Supreme Court
[5] TR No. 1/04.05.2012 of OSGK of the Supreme Court under No. 1/2011
[6] Thus "Legal problems of SDA", Al. Jerov, B. Shaldupova, St. Ilova, El. Zlatinova, Sofia: Siela, 2010, p. 189.
[7] In this sense - "Negotiation - tricks and traps", Yordan Bozhkov, Emanuil Kanin, Gergana Deenchina, Stefka Pehlivanova, Tsvetanka Hristova, Kosta Bayraktarov, Sofia: "Daniel SG" OOD, 2006, p. 28.
[8] Milkov, P., Contract system in construction. Sofia: Trud i Pravo Publishing House, 2014, p. 136.
[9] Decision No. 122 of 09.01.2015 under Adm. d. No. 8463/2014 of the Administrative Court - Sofia-city.
[10] Decision No. 1406 of 19.01.2009 of the Supreme Court of Appeals pursuant to City Decree No. 448/2007, 2nd year, GC, rapporteur Judge Zdravka Parvanova
[11] Similar cases have been considered in Decision No. 112 of 31.05.2012 of the Supreme Court of Appeals under city d. No. 1610/2010, IV year o., GK, rapporteur the chairman Borislav Belazelkov; Decision No. 4294 of 13.06.2019 of the SGS according to the city of D. No. 14146/2018; Decision No. 124251 of 27.05.2019 of the SRS under City Decree No. 17625/2017.
[12] Decision No. 1183 of 1.11.2000 of the Supreme Court of Appeal under city d. No. 57/2000, II year o., reporter Judge Borislav Belazelkov.
[13] Slavov, N., The preliminary contract under Bulgarian law. Sofia: Feneya, 2012, p. 125. Kalaidzhiev, A., Obligation Law. Common part. Fifth edition. Sofia: Sibi, 2010, p. 148.
[14] Decision No. 15 of 15.01.1980 under City Decree No. 2571/1979, I year of the Air Force.
[15] Decision No. 1183 of 1.11.2000 of the Supreme Court of Appeal under city d. No. 57/2000, II year o., reporter Judge Borislav Belazelkov.
[16] Decision No. 33 of 12.06.2006 of the BAS on Civil e. No. 7/2006
[17] Decision No. 53 of 17.02.2011 under City Decree No. 1467/2009 of the Supreme Court, 2 II year o. and Decision No. 204 of 12.01.2018 of the Supreme Court of Appeals under City Law No. 113/2017, 1st year, Supreme Court, Judge Vanya Atanasova, rapporteur.
[18] Decision No. 11562 of 07.10.2009 by adm. d. No. 5813/2009, II dept. of the Supreme Court, Decision No. 7722 of 20.06.2017 under adm. d. No. 12898/2016 of the Supreme Court of Appeal, III Dept., Decision No. 1462 of 04.08.2017 by adm. d. No. 460/2017 of the Administrative Court - Burgas.
[19] In this direction is also the consistent judicial practice of the Supreme Administrative Court - in the absence of a contract in notarial form or a declaration of consent, the construction permit issued only in the name of one of the co-owners is illegal - Decision No. 3266 of 12.03.2010 under Adm. d. No. 13952/2009, II o. of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Decision No. 5170 of 21.04.2010 under adm. d. No. 211/2010, II o. of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Decision No. 12521 of 05.10.2011 by adm. d. No. 4644/2011, II o. of the SAC.
[20] In this sense, an opinion was also expressed in "Legal problems of SDA", Al. Jerov, B. Shaldupova, St. Ilova, El. Zlatinova, Sofia, Siela, 2010, p. 198.
[21] Milkov, P., Contract system in construction. Sofia: Trud i Pravo Publishing House, 2014, p. 155.
[22] Decision No. 13436 of 11.11.2009 by adm. d. No. 13811/2008, II dept. of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Decision No. 457 of 14.01.2008 under adm. d. No. 9411/2007, II dept. of SAC etc.
[23] Decision No. 13505 of 10.10.2019 by Adm. d. No. 568/2019, II dept. of SAC.
[24] Interpretive decision No. 33 of 19.04.1971, OSGK of the Supreme Court.
[25] In this regard, Decision No. 192 of 16.02.2017 under City Decree No. 763/2016, year k., I year o. of the Supreme Court and Interpretive Decision No. 1 of 06.08.2012 according to interpretation d. No. 1/2012, OSGK of the Supreme Court.
[26] Decision No. 194 of 14.10.2015 according to city decree No. 2767/2015, year k, I year o. of the Supreme Court.
[27] The practice in this direction is constant - Decision No. 13436 of 11.11.2009 by adm. d. No. 13811/2008, II dept. of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Decision No. 457 of 14.01.2008 under adm. d. No. 9411/2007, II dept. of SAC etc.
[28] Decision No. 44 of 03/04/2013 of the Supreme Court of Appeals pursuant to Administrative Order No. 358/2012, IV year o., GK.
[29] Decision No. 9321 of 27.06.2012 under Adm. d. No. 8019/2012, II dept. of SAC.
[30] Decision No. 11992 of 8.11.2016 of the Supreme Administrative Court under adm. d. No. 3840/2016, II o., reporter Judge Emilia Kaburova.
[31] Decision No. 53 of 17.02.2011 under City Decree No. 1467/2009 of the Supreme Court, 2 II year o. and Decision No. 204 of 12.01.2018 of the Supreme Court of Appeals under City Law No. 113/2017, 1st year, Supreme Court, Judge Vanya Atanasova, rapporteur.
[32] Decision No. 13398 of 9.10.2019 of the Supreme Administrative Court under adm. d. No. 1440/2019, II o., reporter Judge Iliana Doycheva.
[33] Decision No. 85/24.04.2014 of the Supreme Court of Appeals, II City Dept. under City Decree No. 1157/2014
[34] Decision No. 233443 of 09.10.2017, under city order No. 10937/2014 of the Sofia District Court.
[35] In the specific case, the construction and installation works for finishing the building with the aim of putting it into operation.
[36] According to Art. 178, para. 1 of SDA, it is not allowed to use constructions or parts of them before they are put into operation by the competent authority. Therefore, to the extent that a residential building has not been put into operation, for the defendant, as well as for the plaintiffs, all as owners, there is an interest in conducting the necessary construction and installation works for its completion and the legal use of the independent objects in it / Decision No. 7019 of 07.09. 2016 under city decree No. 6658/2013 of the Sofia City Court.
[37] The enrichment of the defendant is with the amount that he saved, and should have paid for carrying out construction and installation works, finishing and repair works in his property, so that his object, as well as its adjacent common parts, would be in a condition requiring the introduction of the building into exploitation.
[38] In the words attributed to Octavian Augustus: "What I found in brick I left in marble" (Marmoream se relinquere, quam latericiam accepisset).
