Removing an owner from a building. How and when?
The Property Act allows the general meeting to impose the most severe sanction under the condominium regime—temporary removal of an owner from the building for up to three years. The two classic grounds are: (a) behaviour that endangers the building from fire or significant damage; (b) systematic violation of the rules/decisions of the general meeting or good morals. The Condominium Management Act explicitly expands the scope of application: in addition to removing an owner from a building, a user or occupant (tenant, etc.) may also be removed. Thus, the regulatory framework “assembles” the substantive grounds (Civil Code) and the competence/procedure (Condominium Management Act).
What is “systematicity” and how is it proven?
As mentioned above, the law provides two alternative factual grounds for applying the measure of “removing the owner from the building”:
(a) use of the property in a manner that exposes the building to danger of fire or significant damage,
and
(b) systematic violation of the rules/decisions of the general meeting or good practice; and in both cases the measure is admissible only after written warning from the manager and continuation of the behavior despite it.
The very wording “exposes to danger” means that no actual damage is required – a real, provable danger is sufficient; the courts accept this by examining facts such as violations of fire safety regulations, the condition of installations, etc.
According to the criterion of “systematicity,” practice requires repeated occurrences of the same type to which the condominium has responded and which have continued after the warning. A number of court rulings explicitly accept as a guideline at least three similar violations (e.g., repeated nighttime noise, refusal to comply with the rules for common areas, etc.); the courts check whether there are valid rules/decisions in place, whether the offender has been duly warned, and whether they have continued the same behavior.
The evidence is factual and documentary: minutes of the general meeting and/or statements of findings, written reports and complaints from neighbors, photos/videos, police reports, as well as witness testimony. In their decisions, the courts accept such evidence as relevant, as well as proper delivery of the warning (e.g., registered letter, notarial invitation; if impossible, duly certified posting).
Written warning before removing an owner from a building
The warning prior to removing an owner from a building is a mandatory legal prerequisite for imposing the measure of “removing an owner from a building.” Without it, the decision to apply the measure is vulnerable. It is sent by the building manager/chair of the management board to the specific violator (owner, user, or occupant), and in the case of an addressee who is a “user/occupant,” it is good practice to send a copy to the owner as well for information.
The warning for removal of owner from building must specify must describe the facts (date, time, type violation; reference to violated provisions of the rules/decisions of the General Assembly or good manners), to specify reasonable term for termination and expressly to declare that in the event of non-compliance it will a34> be proposed removal up to 3 years. This follows the structure of the relevant provision of the law, as well as the enduring a48> understanding in doctrine and practice regarding the elements of the factual composition.
Delivery and proof. The warning is delivered in a provable manner – the most reliable are notarized invitation or registered letter with return receipt/courier with confirmation; if it is impossible to personally deliver them, the attempts and the refusal to accept them shall be documented a22> attempts and refusal to accept. It is important that the copy for floor ownership contains the date of delivery/receipt, since from this date the property is considered to have been transferred to the owner. a34> of delivery/receipt, since this date marks the start of the period granted for a39> and it is established that the conduct has continued despite the warning.
Role in the subsequent procedure. The existence of a duly served warning is not only an “entry point” for discussing removal from the OS, but also a procedural condition for enforcement: the law requires a copy of the warning for the removal of an owner from a building to be attached to the request for the issuance of an enforcement order for removal. Therefore, the warning
Convening and holding the general meeting — why it is necessary and what it provides
The general meeting is the body to which the law expressly assigns the power to impose the measure of “removing an owner from a building”: the decision is taken by the general meeting in accordance with Article 45 of the Property Act for a period of up to three years (including in relation to a user or occupant). The manager does not have independent authority to “remove” — he only organizes the procedure and proposes the measure. It is the decision of the General Meeting that materializes the collective assessment on the existence of grounds and on the proportionality of the sanction, while at the same time creating a complete written record (minutes and annexes), without which subsequent judicial protection or enforcement is practically impossible.
Furthermore, the law links the decision of the general meeting with the right to judicial review — each owner may challenge it under Article 40 of the ZUES before the district court within 30 days; without a valid decision, there is nothing to review. Thus, the General Meeting is not just a “stage” but a necessary guarantee against arbitrariness — both a source of competence and a procedural “anchor” for judicial review.
This leads to increased formal discipline: the invitation must include an explicit point “Removal under Article 45 of the Property Act” to ensure predictability and enable the addressee to organize their defense; the meeting is held under the updated quorum rules (51% of ideal shares; if this is not achieved, it is postponed by 1 hour and held with 26%), and the law also allows for a mixed mode (in person + video conference) if the requirements for identity verification are met.
The protocol shall be drawn up within seven days and shall be published pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 7 of the ZUES (notice in a prominent place and provision of copies); it is precisely the regular disclosure that “starts” the 30-day period for judicial challenge, which is why the courts strictly adhere to the evidence of posting the notice and the content of the protocol. These requirements are not a formality, but a condition for the decision to take effect and withstand scrutiny.
Voting and majorities.
The decision to remove is within the competence of the general meeting. According to the established interpretation, a
Challenge of the decision to remove the owner from the building
The right to judicial review is expressly regulated: any owner may request the revocation of an unlawful decision of the general meeting by submitting a request to the district court at the location of the building within a 30-day limitation period from the notification of the decision (posting of a notice and access to the minutes).
The submission does not suspend enforcement, unless the court expressly orders a suspension at your request; in the application, state the specific grounds (lack of jurisdiction, procedural violations in convening/agenda/voting, conflict with the law, disproportionate sanction). The respondent is the condominium, represented by the manager/board of directors. Attach to the request the minutes and evidence of its disclosure. the court monitors ex officio compliance with the 30-day deadline.
At the same time, the law allows for internal challenges to the content of the minutes before the manager/board of directors within 7 days of the notification (the aim is to correct the records), but this does not replace legal protection. In the event of
How does the actual removal of an owner from a building come about — rethinking the “two paths” through the prism of contradictory practice
Once the removal decision becomes final (uncontested or confirmed), the administrator may formally invoke the references in the law and request an enforcement order. However, this is where the real procedural risk begins:
For this reason, the recommended and more secure route is a lawsuit for the release of the property, in which the prerequisites (proper notice, valid decision of the General Meeting, etc.) are proven. A successful decision is provided with a writ of execution and enforced by a bailiff—this is the only way to guarantee a predictable result without procedural “pitfalls” in the order for payment proceedings. For the sake of completeness: it is noted in the literature that practice is
The term “up to 3 years” — starting point and practical monitoring
The decision of the general meeting to remove an owner from a building shall expressly specify both the duration of the measure (within the legal maximum of three years under Article 45 of the Property Act) and its starting point. In order to avoid the sanction being rendered meaningless by delays, it is advisable to formulate it as follows: “the period shall run from the actual vacating of the property (voluntarily or by compulsion)”. This understanding corresponds to the logic of the ZUES, according to which the decision is first executed (within the period specified therein, and in the absence thereof — 14 days from the announcement of the protocol), and only after the actual departure does the temporary deprivation of use begin to take effect; in this way, the three years are not allowed to “melt away” while the person is still actually occupying the property.
As part of the implementation, include specific operational obligations in the decision itself: handing over all keys/identifiers (chips, remote controls), terminating access to common areas with controlled entry, returning provided parking spaces/storage areas, etc., as well as the date and time by which this should be done.
After the actual removal of the owner from the building, it is advisable for the manager to officially record in the condominium register the date of departure and the deadline for the measure – this internal registration facilitates proof in disputes and in the subsequent restoration of access after the expiry of the deadline. The doctrine expressly recommends such registration of the “fact of removal” and the “term of removal” precisely to ensure transparency and controllability of the measure.
Note: Legal literature accepts that the law does not specify the starting point of the three-year period for the measure of “removing the owner from the building”; Therefore, it is advisable for the General Meeting to determine it, and in the absence of such an explicit clause, the argument that the period should run from the actual removal rather than from the date of the decision or its announcement is well-founded.
Conclusion
The measure of “removing an owner from a building” is an exception that “works” only if strict procedural discipline is observed: a clear decision by the general meeting with proper notification, a correctly documented warning, and a pre-planned procedural trajectory (order of claims or, in local practice, a statement under Article 410 of the Civil Procedure Code). Constructed in this way, the procedure is predictable for the parties and defensible before the court and the bailiff, without rendering the three-month maximum meaningless through formal errors. The legal “framework” is in the norms themselves—Articles 45–46 of the Property Act, Article 38 of the ZUES, and the subject matter of Article 410 of the Civil Procedure Code—so each stage should be calibrated to them and to current court practice.
Contact
Еднолично адвокатско company “Silvia Petkova”
address: city. Sofia, street. „Tri ushi“ № 2, apartment. 3
Tell. 0885 47 77 57
email: office@petkovalegal.com
working hours: from Monday to Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
OR
