Art. 33 Property Act: co-owner buy-out right in Bulgaria

Art. 33 of the Property Act (ЗС) is among the most frequently applied and, at the same time, most disputed provisions of Bulgarian property law. It limits a co-owner’s freedom to sell their undivided share (идеална част) of an immovable property to a third party and gives the other co-owners a specific right of buy-out. For a practising lawyer, knowing the three paragraphs, the legal nature of this right and the two-month preclusive deadline is decisive both when preparing a notarial transaction and when bringing a claim.

This analysis organises the provision around a verified consolidated text of the three paragraphs, explains the formative character of the right under para. 2 and the consequences of non-payment under para. 3, and separates a sale from the other contracts for consideration. The aim is a quick professional reference that places the rule in the context of its application. For a wider view of the system of the Act, see our general analysis of the Property Act: property rights and practice, of which this article is an in-depth companion on Art. 33.

What Art. 33 ЗС regulates: limiting the fragmentation of co-ownership

The rules in Art. 33 ЗС express the legislator’s aim to limit the fragmentation of ownership and to protect the co-owners’ interest in not having an outsider brought into the community without their knowledge. In essence, the provision is a statutory restriction on the power to dispose of an undivided share of immovable property. It does not take away the right to dispose but subjects it to a certain procedure and to a right of preferential acquisition in favour of the other co-owners.

The provision sits in the section on co-ownership (Arts. 30-34 ЗС). It is directly connected with the general rule on managing the common thing in Art. 32 and with the right to partition in Art. 34, which outline the regime in which a co-owner exercises their powers.

The duty to offer to the co-owners (para. 1) and the notarial procedure

Para. 1 sets two cumulative requirements before a sale to a third party: presenting to the notary written evidence that the share has been offered to the other co-owners on the same terms, and a written declaration that none of them has accepted the offer. The phrase “on the same terms” is key: the offer to the co-owners must match in price and material terms what is later offered to the third party. A difference in terms defeats performance of the duty.

The procedure applies only when the buyer is a third party, external to the co-ownership. When the buyer is another co-owner, the restriction in Art. 33 does not apply, since no new participant is introduced into the community. The requirement applies to immovable property, not to movable things.

The buy-out right under Art. 33(2) ЗС: a formative subjective right

Para. 2 regulates the core of the protection. The right of buy-out arises in two alternative situations: when the declaration under para. 1 is untrue, or when the third party buys the share on terms agreed fictitiously to the detriment of the other co-owners. In that case the interested co-owner can buy out the share on the terms actually agreed, not on the fictitious ones stated in the transaction.

Legal scholarship consistently accepts that the right under Art. 33(2) ЗС is a formative (potestative) subjective right. It is not exercised by an out-of-court declaration but through the courts, by a constitutive claim (a claim by which the court itself changes the legal relationship). When the claim is upheld, the legal position of the parties changes and the person buying out becomes the holder of the transferred undivided share. This theoretical model is set out in the in-depth review by gramada.org of the buy-out right as a precondition for acquiring property rights.

The two-month preclusive deadline and the constitutive claim

The second sentence of para. 2 sets the time within which the right can be realised: the claim must be brought within two months of the sale. This deadline is preclusive, not a limitation period: when it expires, the right itself is extinguished for good and cannot be restored or suspended under the general rules on limitation. The starting point is the sale, that is, the conclusion of the transaction with the third party.

In the more recent case law on the application of Art. 33(2) ЗС it is accepted that this deadline goes to the merits of the claim, not to its admissibility. This thesis is confirmed, for example, in Decision No. 1391 of 12 April 2019 in civil case No. 1792/2018 of a district court, 3rd panel (ECLI:BG:RC533:2019), which accepts that for the potestative right to be properly exercised the claim must be brought within two months of the sale and that this deadline, although preclusive, goes to the merits and not to the admissibility of the claim. It should be borne in mind that this is a first-instance act with persuasive, not binding, force: it illustrates a settled understanding but is not binding practice of the Supreme Court of Cassation (ВКС).

When Art. 33 does NOT apply: exchange, gift, transfer against maintenance

The provisions of Art. 33 ЗС are interpreted strictly. The restriction and the buy-out right relate only to a sale, not to the other contracts transferring the undivided share. So in an exchange for an individually determined thing, in a gift, or in a transfer against an obligation of maintenance and care (издръжка и гледане), the duty to offer under para. 1 and the buy-out right under para. 2 do not apply. This distinction is of real practical importance when choosing the right transaction.

It should be noted that in legal scholarship a minority view has also been expressed, extending the regime to an exchange for things determined by kind. The dominant view, however, remains that the provision covers only a sale, which also defines the practical frame of this analysis.

Consequences of non-payment (para. 3): the judgment is void by operation of law

Upholding the buy-out claim does not end the relationship between the parties. Para. 3 binds the person buying out to pay the sum due because of the buy-out within one month of the judgment entering into force. If payment is not made within that time, the judgment is deemed void by operation of law, that is, ex lege, with no need for a new claim or a separate declaration.

Case law and disputed questions (2026)

The practice under Art. 33 ЗС is extensive and has a long history. Several understandings are settled: the right under para. 2 is formative and is exercised by a constitutive claim; the two-month deadline is preclusive and runs from the sale; the provision is interpreted strictly and covers only a sale. When working with specific court acts we recommend checking the details in the primary source before relying on them, since inaccurately reproduced citations also circulate around the topic.

For the systematic context of the right to partition, which often accompanies co-ownership disputes, the provision of Art. 34 ЗС is also relevant.

Conclusion

Art. 33 ЗС balances the co-owner’s freedom of disposal with the community’s interest in not having an outsider brought in on opaque terms. Its practical application concentrates on three elements: correct performance of the duty to offer on the same terms under para. 1, compliance with the two-month preclusive deadline for the constitutive claim under para. 2, and securing payment within the one-month deadline under para. 3. The strict interpretation, which limits the regime to a sale, also defines the field of application of the provision.

For a wider context on property rights and the system of the Act, see our full analysis of the Property Act. The full consolidated text of the provisions is available in the Property Act on lex.bg.

Pravko provides legal information but does not replace consultation with a lawyer. For important legal matters, consult a licensed lawyer.