“Tsarska Bistrica” ​​belongs to Simeon, because it was built with personal funds from his grandfather Ferdinand (Obzor)



[ad_1]

l The money was from the mother of

the abdicated king – Clementine

l This is the first case that

Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and

his sister won

l The state should

to restore them on

80,000 BGN expenses

The Tsarska Bistrica Palace belongs to Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and his sister Maria Louisa Hrobok. The decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) is final.

This is the first case for royal estates, won by the king and his sister. So far, they have lost the “Sargyol”, “Sitnyakovo” huts and the former UBO farm in the “Vrana” palace. The cases of Vrana and 16,500 decars of forests in Rila are still pending.

The decision of the three judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation Margarita Sokolova, Svetlana Kalinova and Galabina Gencheva comes almost 6 months after the interpretive case of the Constitutional Court (CC) related to real estate. More than a year ago, the three judges asked the Constitutional Court what was the effect of their decision, declaring in 1998 the law that declared unconstitutional the property of the families of the former kings Fernando and Boris and their state heirs.

The Constitutional Court accepted that laws such as 1947, which have only one effect, should be considered invalid since the approval of the new constitution in 1991.

While awaiting the interpretation of the constitutional judges, the “Tsarska Bistrica” ​​case was stopped and then resumed. The final decision was announced on Monday.

First, the Supreme Judges take into account the statements of witnesses, although they state that

discussed

the facts are from before

more than

100 years

and there are practically no eyewitnesses to them. The witnesses were questioned in previous instances.

According to one of them, in 1903 the old palace had already been built. The new one was completed before the Balkan War, when Ferdinand I remarried. His second wife, from whom he has no children, is the German princess Eleanor. The first is the Italian princess mother of Tsar Boris III, Maria Luisa de Borbón-Parma.

The new palace was built on the idea of ​​Fernando, who chose the place as suitable for hunting the grouse. It is known that he was a passionate hunter. So he started buying land in Rila and made the construction a “more luxurious holiday villa.”

“Like a place to go hunting, on a trip to the mountain,” said the witness. The palace was used by Fernando until his abdication, and later by his son Boris III.

In fact, this witness was the grandson of academic Ivan Buresh, director of the Royal Museum (now the National Museum of Natural History) for 45 years from 1914 to 1950. Acad. Buresh met Ferdinand personally and visited the “Tsarska Bistrica” ​​palace in 1903.

The other witness questioned was a historian, researcher of the monarchical institute and of the relations between the Church and the State. In her testimony, she recreated her conversations with a friend of Queen Joanna.

In front of her

the mother of

Simeon

said like

was expelled

from the country

With two children

without funds

for maintenance. He described the beauty of Rila, saying that the palace was built with funds from Ferdinand and the state took it all.

He also claimed that the site for the palace was chosen by Fernando. Construction of the old palace, a “hunting lodge”, began in 1901, and the new building was built between 1908 and 1912 at the request of Queen Eleanor.

The Supreme Judges note that Ferdinand invested personal funds inherited after the death of his mother, Princess Clementina of Bourbon, Orleans, as well as values ​​provided by her for 1 million francs. A letter dated October 9, 1986 stated that she had given the guarantees to her son.

Therefore, the supreme judges believe that the conclusions of the previous courts that the buildings were built with state money are not true. The magistrates point out that

in the state

budgets of

1900 to 1913

not provided

construction cost

by “Tsarska

Bistritsa “

The court further noted that “all buildings built above or below ground are presumed to have been built by the owner with his own funds and belong to him until proven otherwise.”

According to the magistrates, there is the possibility that what was built on the land does not belong to its owner, but only if it is established that the constructions were not made with their funds.

Furthermore, in the decision, the court focuses on the question of whether the property may be owned by the Office of the Mayor of the King’s Civil List.

So far, Simeon and his sister have lost cases in all the courts because the magistrates accepted that the quartermaster’s office was a state institution. The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha lawyers opined that this was in fact the body through which the king participated in civil restructuring, because as monarch he could not be directly involved in it.

Now, in this case, the magistrates explain in detail that “the Intendancy of the Civil List can be recognized as the holder only if it is established in the case that it effectively exercised independent power until the abdication of the king.”

The judges point out that in the inventory presented in the case, drawn up in 1946, the documents drawn up in 1900 and 1901 were indicated as documents proving the acquisition of the property of Tsarska Bistrica. The deeds of the fortress and the sales register of 1904. Also the notarial deeds drawn up in 1930.

However, no evidence was presented that the Office of the Mayor of the Civil List had established an independent authority over property prior to 1918.

“And even if we assume that in 1918, after the departure of former Tsar Ferdinand of Bulgaria, the property passed into the hands of the mayor’s office, it was not until 1930 that the 20-year period of unscrupulous possession provided for in the Statute expired of limitations “. say the judges.

Furthermore, the testimony of the witnesses questioned in the case shows that

the actual

power over

the property after

1918

exercised

by Tsar Boris III

and members of his family ”, they added.

Therefore, the magistrates accepted that the Intendancy of the Civil List did not own the property with the intention of acquiring it for itself or for the Bulgarian state, because it was entrusted with the preservation, administration and use of the property of the former king Fernando, that it was prohibited. at your expense.

The judges also stop at the decision of the Constitutional Court of April this year. They say that he believes that the 1947 law declaring the property of the families of former kings Ferdinand and Boris and their heirs state property is a law in the formal sense.

This is exactly what makes its consequences unique. They have been repealed since the 1991 Constitution entered into force.

“From now on, Bulgaria cannot legitimize itself as the owner of the properties declared property of the State by this law, including the properties that are the subject of controversy in the present case,” says the Supreme Court of Cassation.

The judges ordered the state to pay BGN 18,897 in costs in Simeon’s case and BGN 62,354 to his sister.



[ad_2]