20 years together

April 2013

30 April 2013

At the beginning of April, 2013, Ms. Plamena Georgieva, Senior Associate at Dimitrov, Petrov & Co. Law Firm became a member of the European Communities Trade Mark Association (ECTA). ECTA is an Association that brings together experts practicing professionally in the Member States of the European Union in the field of trademarks, designs and other IP rights. ECTA upholds/maintains close co-operation with the European Commission and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), and is also recognised by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). In June Ms. Georgieva attended the ECTA Annual Conference in Bucharest, Romania, where she had the chance to exchange experience with many experts in the area from other European countries.

***

On 20 April 2013, Mr. Alexander Todorov, Partner at Dimitrov, Petrov & Co. Law Firm, participated in a seminar “Starting business with a zero budget”. The main objective of the workshop’s organizers was to provide accessible information to people on how to run a successful business without having to make an investment, as every start is difficult and risky. The people who attended the workshop had the opportunity to get inspiration from people who have already managed to create a business with zero budget, also to learn how to practically deal with restricted funds/finances, to establish contacts with potential partners and clients, as well as to receive free of charge one-on-one consultations with a lawyer and an accountant. Mr. Todorov was the legal expert who held conversations with many people who have creative ideas for launching a business of their own and answered a series of questions related to the legal framework of the overall process that accompanies such an initiative.

***

Interpretative Decision No. 13 of April 10, 2013 by the Supreme Court of Cassation

The General Assembly of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation (GACD of SCC) adopted an interpretative decision on the following issues:

1. ‘Is seeking allocation of the use of a co-owned property under Art. 32, Para. 2 of the Property Act (PA) by the co-owner having in possession more than half of the co-owned property admissible?’, and

2. ‘Is the court allowed to rule on objections related to the rights of the parties in the co-ownership, which by their nature represent ownership disputes, during the procedure for allocation of the use of a co-owned property under Art. 32, Para. 2 of the PA, or these preliminary disputes shall be settled only by force of res judicata in a separate claim procedure?’

With regard to these issues, the GACD of SCC adopted the following:

1. Seeking allocation of the use of a co-owned property under Art. 32, Para. 2 of the PA by the co-owner having in possession more than half of the co-owned property is admissible.

2. During the procedure for allocation of the use of a co-owned property under Art. 32, Para. 2 of the PA the court is obliged to consider all objections made in relation to the rights of the parties in the co-ownership, except for those through which potestative rights are exercised.

The Decision has been signed with dissenting opinion by some of the judges.

***

Interpretative Decision No. 7 of April 25, 2013 by the Supreme Court of Cassation

The General Assembly of the Civil and the Commercial Divisions of the Supreme Court of Cassation (GACCD of SCC) adopted an interpretative decision on some disputable issues related to the registration made under the Regulations for Registration (RR).
 
With regard to these issues GACCD of SCC adopted the following:

1. The provision of Art. 129, Para. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) shall not apply in the procedure for registration of deeds regarding real estates. In the event of irregularity of the application for registration the registry judge is obliged to refuse registration pursuant to Art. 32a of the RR, without being able to provide instructions for rectification of the irregularity.

2. The provision of Art. 6, Para. 3 of the RR shall not apply in the procedure for registration of an already imposed injunction pursuant to Chapter V of the RR. The real estate shall not necessarily be described in the deed submitted for registration in compliance with the requirements set in Art. 60, item 1-7 of the Cadastre and Property Register Act and a scheme-excerpt from the cadastral map shall not necessarily be presented in order to register the injunction; it is enough to describe the real estate in compliance with the requirements set in Art. 6, Para. 1, item C of the RR.

3. The registration of the certificate under Art. 263c, Para. 1 and Art. 263d of the Commercial Act in case of transformation of commercial companies holding real rights over a real estate or over a movable property, the transactions with which are to be registered, shall be made in accordance with Section II of the RR. The legal ground for registration is the provision of Art. 4, item I of the RR since the respective deed is not explicitly referred to in item A-G of Art. 4 of the RR. The due fee shall be defined pursuant to Art. 2 of the Tariff for the State Fees Collected by the Registry Agency (‘the Tariff’), where the basis shall be the balance value of the real estate according to the final balance of the company - predecessor, but not less than the tax assessment value.

4. A contract for establishment of easement for construction of branching of common networks and facilities of the technical infrastructure through another owner’s property under Art. 193 of the Spatial Planning Act in favour of a person who does not own another real estate is not subject to registration. In the simplified form the contract might be concluded (respectively, registered) when the parties to it are owners of two or more real properties through which the facilities pass or which are serviced by the facilities.

5. Registration of an in-kind contribution by a shareholder in a commercial company with subject real right over a real estate shall not be registered if the applicant has not provided evidence of the rights of the contributor before the registry judge.

6. The examination which the registry judge performs pursuant to Art. 32a, Para. 1 of the RR regarding the fact whether the deed submitted for registration meets the requirements of the law includes the following: whether the deed is subject to registration, whether it is executed in compliance with the formal requirements and whether it includes the content provided for in the RR. The substantive prerequisites of the deed are not to be examined unless this is explicitly provided by law. The regularity of a deed which is issued by the court or the registration of which is ordered by the court cannot be examined in any aspect.

7. Upon registration of a copy of an announced will with subject real estate and rights over a real estate, the registry judge does not verify the rights of the testator and is not entitled to refuse registration on the grounds of lack of evidence for such rights.

8. The bailiff is entitled to appeal refusal of the registry judge when such is issued with regard to a request submitted by the bailiff.

9. The notary public is entitled to appeal refusal of the registry judge when such is issued with regard to a request submitted by the notary public.

10. The plaintiffs who are exempt from a state fee for the claim procedure pursuant to Art. 83, Para. 2 of the CPC, are not exempt from the obligation for payment of a state fee for the registration. The plaintiffs cannot be relieved from this obligation neither by the court nor by the registry judge.

11. The amount of the state fee due in case of partial deletion (concerning a particular property or properties) of a registration of a mortgage established on two or more properties in order to secure one debt shall be defined pursuant to Art. 3 in connection to Art. 2 of the Tariff, calculated on the basis of the redeemed amount of the debt.

The decision has been signed with dissenting opinion by some of the judges.

***

« Previous  Next »