More than three decades after the process of restoring agricultural land ownership began in Bulgaria, there are still owners and heirs whose ownership rights have been recognised but who have not actually recovered their land. This is where one of the most complex issues of land restitution arises – land forming part of the so-called residual land fund under Article 19 of the Agricultural Land Ownership and Use Act (ALOUA). The issue became particularly relevant after 23 December 2025, when the five-year restriction on the disposal of such land expired. This once again raised the question of which properties genuinely belong to municipalities and which are affected by pending restitution proceedings.
Under Article 19 of the ALOUA, municipalities manage and administer agricultural land remaining after the restoration of owners’ rights. Once the land redistribution plan has entered into force and the map of existing and restorable former boundaries has been approved, such land becomes municipal property. It forms the so-called residual land fund, which includes land remaining after the restitution process, including land for which restitution was not claimed within the statutory time limits. Municipalities acquire such land by operation of law rather than through purchase or another ordinary transaction.
Individual properties should not simply be unilaterally declared municipal property. The ALOUA provides that they are to be identified by a special commission appointed by the Director of the relevant Regional Directorate of Agriculture. The commission includes representatives of the Municipal Agriculture Office, the Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Agency, the municipality and the relevant state forestry or hunting enterprises. When a municipal property deed is drawn up, the commission’s decision recorded in its minutes must also be specified. This is important for owners and heirs because, where a particular property is disputed, it is necessary to establish both the legal basis and the procedure under which it became municipal property.
There is, however, an important point to consider. Municipal ownership of this land is closely linked to the completion of the restitution process. Therefore, where a particular property is disputed, the key question is not only “Who is currently registered as the owner?”, but also “Was there a recognised right to restitution, and was the restitution procedure completed?” This distinction is particularly important where land is already recorded in the registers and cadastral map as municipal property but is also the subject of earlier restitution files.
Land restitution involves several stages – from recognition of the right to restitution to the actual restoration of ownership over a specific property. Some of the difficulties arise between these two stages. There are cases where a former owner or their heirs have a recognised right to restitution within existing or restorable former boundaries, but the boundaries of the specific property have not been established and the restitution procedure has therefore not been completed.
In relation to land under Article 19, two different situations must be clearly distinguished. The first concerns land that genuinely remained after the completion of the restitution process and lawfully became municipal property. The second concerns cases where an owner or their heirs have a recognised right to restitution, but the procedure relating to the specific property has not yet been completed. The distinction between these two categories lies at the heart of many disputes. For this reason, the existence of a municipal property deed or the registration of the municipality in the cadastral records should not be the end of the enquiry. Rather, it should prompt a review of the history of the particular property.
For many years, Bulgarian legislation restricted municipalities’ ability to dispose of land forming part of the residual land fund. The purpose of these restrictions was to preserve such land as a resource for completing pending restitution proceedings and compensating persons entitled to restitution. The initial five-year restriction introduced in 2015 was followed by a further five-year restrictive regime, effective from 23 December 2020, which expired on 23 December 2025. As a result, from the beginning of 2026 municipalities were once again able to plan transactions involving these properties under the general legal regime applicable to municipally owned agricultural land. This created a new practical issue. While the restrictions were in force, municipalities had significantly limited powers to dispose of these properties. Following their expiry, the possibility that a particular property may become the subject of a disposal transaction has become more significant for persons whose restitution proceedings remain incomplete. Restrictions on disposal alone, however, do not resolve the underlying issue. They merely preserve the land. The essential question is how to clearly distinguish land that genuinely belongs to the municipality from land in respect of which recognised restitution rights still exist.
If you have information that a predecessor or ancestor owned agricultural land for which restitution proceedings were initiated, but the property is currently recorded as municipal property under Article 19, the enquiry should not be limited to the current cadastral map. It is important to establish whether an application for restitution was filed, whether a decision was issued by the former Land Commission or the relevant Municipal Agriculture Office, exactly what rights were recognised, whether the procedure was completed by restoring ownership over a specific property, and on what legal basis the land was subsequently included in the residual land fund.Ultimately, the history of the particular property and the documents contained in the restitution file are crucial in determining whether the land genuinely remained after completion of the restitution process or whether it is still subject to pending restitution proceedings.