Reserved share of inheritance in Bulgaria: court practice

The reserved share (запазена част) is among the most frequently contested institutions of Bulgarian inheritance law. The mix of heirs, gifts made during the deceased’s lifetime, sales used to disguise a gift and the question of accepting an inheritance with benefit of inventory (приемане по опис) raise complex doctrinal and procedural questions every day. This analysis sets out the rules currently in force under Art. 28-32 of the Inheritance Act (ЗН), the method of forming the estate mass under Art. 31 of the ЗН, the claim under Art. 30 of the ЗН and the relevant case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation (ВКС).

The top results publicly available on this subject are either too short and without supporting case law, or a long wall of text with nothing structured to pull out. This article fills that gap with practical material for lawyers who draft a statement of claim under Art. 30 of the ЗН or defend against a reduction, as well as for preparation for the state exam in inheritance law.

Legal framework: Art. 28-32 of the ЗН

The reserved share was adopted as early as the Inheritance Act of 1889 (repealed) and is retained in the Inheritance Act of 1949 now in force. The idea is to limit the deceased’s freedom to dispose of their whole estate, whether during their lifetime or by will (mortis causa), so that the inheritance security of the closest family circle is protected: descendants, parents and the surviving spouse.

Art. 28 of the ЗН states the general principle: the deceased cannot infringe the reserved share of the persons listed in Art. 28(1) of the ЗН, either by gifts made during their lifetime or by wills. An infringement does not make the act void. It only gives the injured heir the possibility of a reduction under Art. 30 of the ЗН. This distinction is practically decisive, because the act remains effective until the claim is successfully brought.

Heirs with a reserved share (Art. 28 of the ЗН)

The reserved share is a recognised right only for an expressly defined circle of heirs: descendants (including adopted children and heirs by right of representation under Art. 10 of the ЗН), parents (ascendants of the first degree) and the surviving spouse. Ascendants of the second degree and higher, as well as brothers and sisters, have no reserved share and cannot rely on Art. 30 of the ЗН.

The right under Art. 30 of the ЗН is strictly personal as regards the heir, but it is a property right in its subject matter. It follows that it passes to the heirs of a person who dies before exercising it (for example, if the injured heir dies before bringing the claim), and that whether a creditor under Art. 134 of the Obligations and Contracts Act (ЗЗД) may exercise it is debatable. The prevailing view in legal theory is that a creditor cannot exercise it while the heir is alive, because of its personal nature. However, the Phase 2B analysis notes recent case law that calls for an individual check before relying on this view in a specific case.

The shares under Art. 29 of the ЗН

Art. 29 of the ЗН is the central provision for fixing the size of the reserved and the disposable portion. The system is graduated: the share depends both on the type of heirs and on how they are combined. The following table summarises all the scenarios for quick reference.

Particularly important in practice is the case of a spouse who inherits with ascendants of the second degree or with brothers and sisters. Under Plenary Decree No. 1 of the Supreme Court of 26 May 1984 (ППВС), the spouse’s share in this combination depends on how long the marriage lasted: 1/2 of the inheritance if the marriage lasted more than 10 years, and 1/3 if it was shorter. This decree remains authoritative and is applied in current case law.

Forming the estate mass under Art. 31 of the ЗН

To decide whether the reserved share has been infringed, it is not enough to look only at the estate as it stood at the moment of death. Art. 31 of the ЗН introduces a specific method for calculating a notional mass that includes both the estate and the gifts made during the deceased’s lifetime. This is the procedurally most complex part of the claim under Art. 30 of the ЗН.

The valuation of shares, holdings in limited liability companies (ООД) and other corporate rights remains disputed in practice. The ВКС varies between applying market value at death and book value, which makes a forensic economic expert report (съдебно-икономическа експертиза) mandatory for this type of property. For transactions described as “a sale that disguises a gift”, proving thoroughly that there was no consideration is a procedural burden on the claimant.

Claim under Art. 30 of the ЗН: restoring the reserved share

The claim under Art. 30 of the ЗН is a constitutive claim (one that changes a legal situation) for reducing testamentary dispositions and gifts made during the deceased’s lifetime, to the extent that they infringe the claimant’s reserved share. It does not make the act void but reduces it to the amount at which the reserved share is left intact. Before the actual restoration, a set-off is carried out: the claimant sets off the value of their own bequests and gifts from the deceased in their favour.

Jurisdiction over the claim

Jurisdiction over a claim under Art. 30 of the ЗН is determined by two independent factors: territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction is exclusive and is governed by Art. 110(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (ГПК).

The place where the inheritance opened is the deceased’s last permanent residence. Subject-matter jurisdiction, however, is determined by the value of the claim under Art. 103-104 of the ГПК: the district court for a value of up to BGN 25,000 and the regional court for a value above BGN 25,000 (Art. 104, item 5 of the ГПК). This matters especially for high-value estates, where subject-matter jurisdiction is systematically with the regional court.

Art. 30(2) of the ЗН: acceptance with benefit of inventory as a precondition

Art. 30(2) of the ЗН introduces a specific procedural condition: where the claim is brought against a person who is not among the heirs by law under Art. 5-10 of the ЗН, the claimant must have accepted the inheritance with benefit of inventory. This is one of the most practically significant provisions, because overlooking it makes the claim inadmissible.

The period for acceptance with benefit of inventory is three months from learning that the inheritance has opened (Art. 61 of the ЗН) and can be extended by the court at the heir’s request. In practice this means that preparation for a claim under Art. 30 of the ЗН against a third-party donee must start immediately after the death. Remembering this procedural condition too late is a common reason why cases are lost.

Order and technique of the reduction

Art. 32 of the ЗН sets the order in which the reduction is carried out: testamentary dispositions are reduced first, and only after they have been reduced in full, the gifts. Gifts are reduced in reverse chronological order, from the most recent to the oldest, until the reserved share is restored.

Where the property has been transferred by the beneficiary to a third party, Art. 32 of the ЗН, read together with the principle of Art. 33 of the ЗН, allows a request for return from the third party. This possibility, however, is severely limited by the protection of third parties acting in good faith. In practice, actual return from third parties is the exception, not the rule.

Limitation period for the claim under Art. 30 of the ЗН

The claim under Art. 30 of the ЗН is extinguished by the general five-year limitation period under Art. 110 of the ЗЗД, which runs from the opening of the inheritance (that is, from the deceased’s death). This is settled doctrine and practice, since the ЗН itself provides no special limitation period for the claim.

The question of the moment of learning about gifts that were hidden from the heir (for example, disguised as sales) is disputed in practice. One strand of case law holds that the period runs from the objective opening of the inheritance, another that, where the heir was unaware in good faith, the relevant moment is the subjective one of learning. The point matters especially where the concealment lasted a long time and must be developed separately in the statement of claim.

Suspension and interruption of the limitation period follow the general rules of Art. 115-116 of the ЗЗД. The period is interrupted by bringing the claim, by acknowledgement by the beneficiary or by the opening of enforcement proceedings. It is suspended between spouses, between parents and children for as long as parental authority lasts, and in other cases under Art. 115 of the ЗЗД.

Link with partition proceedings

Art. 30 of the ЗН can be exercised either as a stand-alone claim or as an objection in partition proceedings (делба). When a partition claim has been brought and one of the co-heirs considers that their reserved share has been infringed by a will or a gift, they can raise an objection under Art. 30 of the ЗН in the first phase of the partition (the proceedings for admitting the partition). This is procedurally more economical, because the result of the reduction is reflected directly in the shares when the partition protocol is drawn up.

The choice between a stand-alone claim and an objection in the partition depends on the specific circumstances. A stand-alone claim is more suitable when the defendant is not a co-heir in the partition (for example, a third-party donee) or when the partition has not yet been started. An objection in the partition is more economical when all the parties are already in the proceedings.

Current trends in ВКС practice

Recent years have seen the notion of “disposition” in the context of Art. 30 of the ЗН widen to cover indirect transactions. The ВКС consistently classifies as disguised gifts sales without consideration whose only purpose is to remove the property from the estate. This broad interpretation requires the claimant to investigate the flow of payments between the parties to the contested transaction in depth.

A second steady trend is the confirmation of the moment of valuation for real estate: the date of the deceased’s death, not the date of the gift. This principle matters because, when property prices are rising fast, the value of an early gift at the time of death can be much higher than its nominal value at the time of the gift.

Practical tips for lawyers

Preparing a claim under Art. 30 of the ЗН needs a systematic approach from the very first consultation with the client. The following practical points often make the difference between a successful case and one lost on procedure.

The first conversation with the client should establish: the date of the deceased’s death, the heirs, any wills (including those deposited with the court), known gifts made during the deceased’s lifetime, suspicions of disguised transactions and current readiness to accept with benefit of inventory. Without this information the admissibility and prospects of the claim cannot be assessed.

Closing remarks

The reserved share remains one of the most complex areas of Bulgarian inheritance law, in which doctrine and practice continue to develop. The key to a successful case is a systematic procedural approach: correctly classifying the defendant, accepting with benefit of inventory in good time where necessary, calculating the mass accurately under Art. 31 of the ЗН, and relying cautiously only on verified ВКС case law.

For lawyers who practise actively in inheritance law, we recommend systematically following current ВКС decisions on Art. 30 of the ЗН, especially on disguised gifts, the moment of valuation and the classification of the legatee under Art. 30(2) of the ЗН. Accessible primary sources are legalacts.justice.bg and the public portal of the ВКС.

Pravko provides legal information but does not replace advice from a lawyer. For important legal questions, consult a licensed lawyer.