Protection of possession

Although it is factual, the law regulates in great detail the protection of the possession.

The reasons are at least two:

1. The broad meaning and use of government in civil law;

2. Do not allow self-government.

 

Vladislav's defense is regulated in substantive law -  as a special claim. The very fact that protection falls under the heading of special proceedings means that the legislator is paying special attention to the crop protection. What is special about it is that the claims for defense are always in the hands of the District Court, regardless of the value of the claim. If claims protect defamatory property, this action is brought before that district court in whose area the real estate is located.

 

The second feature of the defense is its speed. In these cases, the court only examines the fact of the possession and the fact of the offense. If, in the meanwhile, the possessor has filed a claim for property, he can not bring a rumors claim for protection while the property process is pending. This is because the court will rule with a res judicata ruling on property law, and this will largely prejudge the outcome of a possible pecuniary claim. When the estate is taken by violence or in a hidden way, the court may impose on the offender a fine of up to BGN 100. The decision on the transfer of the property is subject to prior enforcement.

 

The material protection covered by the CW includes 2 offspring claims:

The first claim is under Art. 75 ЗС:

1. Object of protection - this claim protects the possession of immovable property. It is in Art. 75 the law also speaks of quasi-possessions by permitting the claim to protect not only the possession of property rights but also the possession of a right of immovable property on immovable property, explicitly mentioning the domination of easement.

2. This claim does not protect any possession, but only the prolonged. As the condicio sine quano, the six-month period must be indicated, which must have continued possession. This, in itself, requires that evidence of the duration of possession be presented as evidence in the process. And in this case, the BC has created Art. 83, a rebuttable presumption facilitating proof. According to the law, which proves to have ruled at different times, it is assumed that he had ruled in the interval, unless otherwise proved. Therefore, the possessor, by substantiating his claim, must establish the initial term of the possession and the fact of the infringement, as the period between them must be longer than 6 months.

3. With the claim under Art. 75 defends the possession against any violation. This means that the claim is not personal and gives some authors reason to define it as a quasi-petitive claim in the theory (petitions are the claims that protect rights in rem). The period within which the claim under Art. 75 is 6 months.

 

The second claim is settled in Art. 76 ЗС. - is also called a claim for the restoration of the deposed possession

1. Object of protection - it is considerably wider than this previous claim. Protects the possession of both movable and immovable property.

2. The claim is wider in content. It protects not only the taken possession but also the holding. In this sense, the holder may use both the bond and the pecuniary claim under Art. 76 ЗС.

3. By way of distinction from the preceding one, the claim under Art. 76 does not require a duration of possession. He defends both prolonged and current possessions.

4. The time limit for bringing the action is 6 months and it is running from the moment of the revocation of the estate.

5. The claim under Art. 76 is private. He is always brought against the person who has taken possession of the thing. This definitely puts in a more difficult situation the claimant under Art. 76 than the one under Art. 75.

6. The law requires that the possession is not merely broken, but is taken away, that the possessor is deprived of factual authority. This deprivation must have occurred through violence. The term is interpreted extensively, and it is assumed that violence can be both physical and psychological in terms of threats.