[ad_1]
The Tsarska Bistrica Palace is owned by Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and his sister Maria Louisa. This was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC), which ended the long-standing drama surrounding one of the so-called royal estates.
The court held that the palace had been built with the personal funds of Simeon’s grandfather, King Ferdinand I. The court rejected the arguments of the state, which claimed to be the owner of the property.
The regional ministry in charge of the case insisted that the property was state-owned for three reasons.
Forests are not just state forests
First, under the Forestry Law of 1897 with the presumption that the state is the owner of the forests. However, in its decision, the court emphasized that both this law and subsequent laws establish that forests are divided into state, municipal and private. And he cites acts of fortitude, from which it is clear that Fernando began buying land in the area as early as 1901. Both before and after, no documents were issued that the lands in question were state property. Rather, the properties are known as “King’s private forest.”
Witnesses, but not eyewitnesses
In the case, several witnesses were questioned who, contrary to the usual jurisprudence, did not witness the purchase and construction of the palace. Instead, they recounted what they had heard from their ancestors, who were close to the royal family.
However, the court decided to accept his testimony.
“The court may base its factual conclusions regarding construction and possession and testimony, which are not based on direct impressions of the witness in the case where construction and possession took place on a comparatively remote period of time. with the moment of the judicial process. dispute, if the source from which the witness received the information is known and reliable, to the extent that procedural law does not prohibit it … In itself, the fact that the testimony is not based on direct and immediate perceptions does not can justify a conclusion by its unreliability, and hence the finding that the facts alleged by the witnesses did not materialize“, the decision reads.
According to the testimony in question, construction in Bistrita began in 1901 with the idea of being a hunting lodge, since Ferdinand believed that the place was suitable for hunting capercaillie and mountain excursions. The hut was completed in 1903 and the new part of the palace was built between 1908 and 1912. The buildings were built with the king’s personal funds, probably inherited after the death of his mother Clementina.
The case quotes a letter from a Russian diplomat to Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister in 1912, which says:
“The king’s property affairs are far from brilliant: on the one hand, he has bought and established too much in Bulgaria, and Princess K., who already spent a lot in Bulgaria to strengthen her son’s throne, did not give up her will. As expected, a special benefit for her pet, who thus received 600 to 700 thousand francs annual income after the death of her mother and nothing more.“.
At the same time, Ferdinand took a loan of 3 million francs, that is. had funds for construction, the court wrote. In a 1923 insurance policy, the buildings were described as his property.
“Evidence that the buildings were constructed with funds allocated from the state budget for this purpose is not presented in the case; no such element is provided in the budgets presented for the income and expenditure of the Kingdom of Bulgaria. The amounts provided for the NVC Civil List are indicated as a total amount, but not what the allocated funds were used for. In the case, there is no evidence of expenses assigned for this purpose in the period prior to the declaration of Independence, the period in which, as indicated above, the buildings were built.“, the decision reads.
By prescription
The state’s second argument was that the king’s stewardship became owner by prescription after being in his power for 30 years. Therefore, the properties must be returned to the state after the closing of the quartermaster’s office.
However, according to the court, this is not correct: the institution was tasked with looking after Ferdinand’s property after his abdication and could not have acquired Tsarska Bistrica on that basis. Before 1918, when the king was still in Bulgaria, there was no evidence that the intendant had real power over the property, the court concluded. Then Tsar Boris III ruled them. Stewardship is only entrusted to the care of the property.
“Consistently in the Bulgarian legislation after the Liberation and to this day, the principle is maintained that whoever is in charge of the administration or representation of the property of another cannot own this property against the one he represents or in whose name and on whose behalf it manages this property. … This principle must also be applied in the present case, assuming that the mayor cannot win, that is. have de facto power and take private property from the king“, the decision reads.
Unconstitutional
The third argument of the state was that it was the owner, because by law in 1947 the properties of Ferdinand and Boris III were confiscated. This law was declared unconstitutional in 1998. Due to the Tsarska Bistrica case, the Supreme Court of Cassation decided to ask the Constitutional Court what were the consequences of declaring a single effect law unconstitutional, as is the case. The Constitutional Court responded that the law was invalid after the approval of the new constitution in 1991.
A saga of the court
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and the state have been suing for ownership of the property for years. So far, the court has ruled that the state owns the Krichim, Sargyol and Sitnyakovo palaces. The cases continue for the Vrana Palace, as well as for 16,500 decars of forests in Rila.
Did you find this article helpful?
We would be delighted that you support the electronic edition of Mediapool.bg, so that you can continue to have an independent, professional and honest means of analysis of information.
Support us
Subscribe to the most important news, analysis and commentary on the day’s events. The newsletter is sent to your email address every day at 18:00.
Subscription
[ad_2]
