Parking- and condominiumsrights
The parking space is located on the free part of the Building, which is built with building or buildings.
If the building or buildings are built on the basis of a building right, the free areas can be used by the owner of the site, respectively, to be given for use by third parties, including as separate parking spaces. In such a situation are the owners of sites in residential complexes.
So far, there is no extensive practice in Bulgaria for the renting of parking lots as public parking spaces, especially as citizens have a widespread understanding that the construction of the car parks and the infrastructure to them has been financed by the owners of the respective dwellings.
In any case, the Art. 64 of the Ownership Act, according to which the owner of an object in the building is entitled to use the land as much as necessary.
But it must be emphasized immediately that the parking of one or more family cars is definitely not a necessity of using land under Art. 64 ЗС. If we are faced with a building in superfood mode and the owner has transferred a dealership with a notary deed to a third party “parking” on the empty space before concluding that there is a negligible deal, the will of the parties should be carefully examined.
It is possible in the form of a “parking space” the owner of the UPI to have set up the person the right to build a future garage; and precisely in order for this foundation not to transfer to the other owners an ideal part of the land. However, building with garages is not always possible from an urban point of view.
It is possible in the form of a “parking space” the owner of the UPI to have established the right of use on a real part of the terrain (with a view to using it for parking). Although the right of use under Bulgarian law is inconvenient for its non-transferability, its acquirer is not devoid of interest in acquiring it. There is no legal obstacle to establishing a right to use on a real part of the UPI.
A parking space can also be acquired through a rental agreement, as in the case of a commercial transaction, the principle 10-year limit under Art. 229, para. 1 of the CPA. However, the possibilities for such an interpretation are severely narrowed to cases where the “transfer” of the parking space is indicated by a time limit, and such cases do not actually occur.
Last but not least, we should consider that there is a complete and initial nullity of the order.
If the owners of the building or buildings also own the corresponding ideal part of the ownership of the land, the problem of using part of the yard as a parking space should be solved on the floor of the condominium, because the yard will be a common part.
The possibilities for establishing parking rights in a yard – a common part of condominium property, are not large. The only cases where the area of the yard will be sufficient to provide parking space for all owners will be singular. On the other hand, a decision of the general meeting of the condominium can not deprive the owner of his right to use the yard for parking. There is only the possibility – with the unanimous agreement of the owners – to provide for an alternation of usage by days of the week, by months or by years. It is possible (again with unanimity) to agree that a part of the owners who use the parking spaces will pay the others who will not use a rental sum.
In order to avoid a situation where they do not have a parking space reserved for themselves, many clients of “green” dwellings want the latter to be explicitly entered in the deed of their dwelling. Building contractors also do not mind such a practice because the sale of parking places guarantees them considerable profits without much cost.
De lege lata and in view of Art. 38 BC, we can not deny that the yard is predestined for the GENERAL PART of the condominium. Consequently, transactions with the parking lots on the common part will be null and void if the transfer of the parking space takes place in parallel with the transfer of the dwellings, as is the mass practice.
But is it possible to transfer the parking spaces as a right of use, right to build or rent on real parts of the terrain before the developer has begun to transfer the objects to the building and thus establish a condominium? I think it is quite possible.
The law does not require terrain, which will become a common part, not be burdened with limited property rights or lease contracts. With the argument of Art. Pursuant to Article 237 of the IPA, the rented lease agreement would be binding on the acquirers of the condominium.
Therefore, de lege lata there are ways of “acquiring” the parking spaces in the yard before the condominium is built up.
These methods, however, do not coincide with the practice of acquisition by entering in the same title deed which acquires the main object. The very “acquisition” as the end result will be quite different from what is expected from the buyer, paying the parking space. Except when establishing the right to build, it will not become the owner of the parking space, but only a user of a right of use or a long-term lease.
The parking space is located in underground or overground covered parking.
This type of parking space is considered to be 3, that there is no separate object and the deal with them is negligible. Indeed, in this case there is no way to acquire ownership of a real part of the parking lot. However, I do not think that the case of the nullity is always applicable here. Negligence is an institute, the application of which we must resort to moderation and abstinence, especially in the commercial turnover. With careful analysis of the outcome of the parties, we will see that the parking lot is a separate object in the non-residential building. This object is not an integral part of its nature or purpose, because it is designed to serve not all but part of the floor owners (the others may not be car owners, have garages on the ground, etc.) . The parties are not aiming to become sole owners of the parking lot, but to use it in general, each “knowing” which part is. In my opinion, from this it follows that the will of the parties is the garage to be PRIVATE. By purchasing the parking spaces an ideal part of the parking lot is purchased, and in parallel, the real estate is distributed in real way. Upon a subsequent sale of an object in the building we will have to consider it to be transferred as a “parking space” and the ideal part of the parking lot.
To assume that the transfer of the parking space is a negligible transaction would mean allowing the developer and other landlords to invoke this nullification and shake up against the person who has in good faith bought his parking space. This, in turn, will lead to completely redundant disputes.
Still, the adopted construction remains controversial and uncertain in the case law. It is preferable for the parties to exercise extreme caution when acquiring parking rights and to require the transferor to further clarify in the notarial acts what the subject of the transaction is. Particularly in the case of the acquisition of parking spaces in general (underground) parking lots, it is necessary to examine whether the parking spaces are not envisaged according to the projects for a common part of the condominiums. If they are not, the notary deed must explicitly state that an ideal part of it is acquired. It is even better if, prior to the transfer of the parking space, the developer has prepared and submitted to the future owners a future use agreement accompanied by a parking plan.
For the time being, it is not possible to expect an explicit legal regulation of the parking spaces. It would be nice if it was created. I believe that once a phenomenon has it in practice, it is preferable for the law to regulate it explicitly instead of making it not noticeable.