A construction guarantee and a claim against the seller follow different rules. ARG helps identify who owes the remedy, what the defect proves and whether repair, reduced price or damages fits the case.
Imagine that Maria buys an apartment in summer and finds water entering through the roof after the first autumn storm. This illustrative problem raises a familiar question for ARG. Should the claim go to the seller, the original builder or an insurer, and can repairs begin before everyone has inspected the damage?
Seller liability, contractor remedies and other damage claims have different conditions. Ownership alone does not establish every contractual right.
The nature of the defect, the circumstances of acceptance and timely notification can determine whether a particular remedy remains available.
Sale defect periods, construction work remedies and warranties are distinct. A long warranty should not be treated as protection for every possible claim.
Technical evidence should explain the cause and necessary repair. Consequential loss and common element expenses require separate identification.
The buyer's starting point is the promised condition of the property and the seller's responsibility for a significant defect. The Bulgarian Obligations and Contracts Act (Закон за задълженията и договорите, ЗЗД) addresses this responsibility in Articles 193 to 197. A limited comparison with England and Wales is useful because statutory quality obligations also exist there, including reasonable care and skill for qualifying trader services under section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but that service obligation is not the Bulgarian rule governing a property sale. In Bulgaria, the sale and the separate building contract must be analysed on their own terms.
A visible defect can be discovered during an ordinary appropriate inspection. A hidden defect cannot be identified in that way or appears later. A stain painted over before delivery and a crack obvious during handover therefore raise different notice questions. The legal consequences also depend on whether the claimant bought the property or commissioned the work.
Inspection and notice are separate requirements. The buyer must inspect within the time ordinarily necessary and notify the seller immediately of discovered defects under Article 194(1) ЗЗД. Hidden defects that could not be found through ordinary inspection require immediate notice after discovery under Article 194(1). The statutory exception where the seller knew the defect does not justify assuming knowledge merely because the seller was also the developer. Correspondence about earlier leaks, concealed repairs and reports commissioned before sale can support that allegation. Without such evidence, a claimant should be ready to prove timely notification through delivery records and the actual contents of the complaint.
The Supreme Court of Cassation addressed the distinction between receipt and approval in Judgment No. 9 of 5 June 2017, Second Commercial Division, commercial case No. 2690/2015. Its analysis treats acceptance as involving more than physical control and considers conduct alongside objections. For a construction customer, the consequence is practical. Taking possession to prevent deterioration or beginning necessary operations does not answer every question about acceptance. The customer should explain the purpose of that conduct and preserve any contemporaneous reservation instead of relying on a later assertion that the work was never accepted at all.
The public construction framework and contractual defect remedies operate alongside one another. The Bulgarian Spatial Development Act (Закон за устройство на територията, ЗУТ) regulates participants and construction responsibilities, including written contractual relationships under Article 160(2). A restrained comparison with England and Wales is that the Building Regulations 2010 also impose technical requirements for building work, including regulation 4, while leaving distinct questions of contractual liability. In Bulgaria, a document showing that a building entered lawful use does not, without more, prove that the contractor satisfied every obligation owed to its customer.
Minimum guarantees have a specific statutory foundation. The ministerial framework for hidden defects appearing after acceptance and commissioning is provided by Article 160(3) ЗУТ. Contractual guarantee periods cannot be shorter than the prescribed minima under Article 160(4), and the statutory starting point is commissioning under Article 160(5). The relevant contract, category of work and date must all be established. A developer's broad statement that the building has a guarantee is incomplete if it does not identify the obligated party, the covered work and the period applicable to that work.
The detailed instrument is Ordinance No. 2 of 31 July 2003 on Commissioning Construction Works in the Republic of Bulgaria and Minimum Guarantee Periods for Completed Construction and Installation Works, Facilities and Construction Projects (Наредба № 2 от 31 юли 2003 г. за въвеждане в експлоатация на строежите в Република България и минимални гаранционни срокове за изпълнени строителни и монтажни работи, съоръжения и строителни обекти, Наредба № 2). An institutional comparison is the duty concerning fitness for habitation in section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 in England and Wales. It serves a related protective function but does not reproduce the Bulgarian schedule of minimum guarantee periods.
The schedule differentiates types of work. New building structures fall within a ten-year minimum under Article 20(4)(1) Наредба № 2. Waterproofing, thermal insulation, sound insulation and anticorrosion works in a nonaggressive environment have a seven-year minimum under Article 20(4)(3), with five years for an aggressive environment. Other construction, installation and finishing works outside the preceding categories have a five-year minimum under Article 20(4)(4). These categories should not be reduced to a universal assertion that every construction defect is covered for five years. Identifying the failed work is part of identifying the legal period.
The applicable version matters as much as the number. The 2019 amendment published in State Gazette No. 89 includes a transitional rule in paragraph 9 for construction contracts concluded after its entry into force. An older project therefore requires examination of the contract date and the regime then applicable. The age of the apartment owner's purchase is not necessarily the age of the underlying construction contract. Nor does the later sale of an apartment automatically restart the building's minimum guarantee clock. Those dates must be obtained from the project documentation rather than inferred from advertising.
A contractual claim concerns failure to supply the promised result to the person entitled under that contract. A tort claim concerns independently actionable harm. A neighbour whose furniture is damaged during construction may have no building contract with the contractor, but can still examine liability under Article 45 of ЗЗД. Fault is presumed there, while the unlawful conduct, actual damage and causal connection still need to be established.
The person who assigned the work can also be relevant under Article 49 of ЗЗД when harm is caused in or in connection with its performance. This does not make every company listed on a project automatically liable for every defect. The claimant must identify the damaging activity and the legal connection to the defendant. Recovering the same loss twice through different labels is not an available outcome.
The responsible person is identified through the obligation that failed. The seller answers under the sale relationship, the contractor under the commissioned work, and a designer’s role requires its own basis and causal assessment. A shared trading name or participation in the same project does not replace that analysis.
The deadline is particularly important for immovable property. The ordinary period for the claims under Article 195 is one year from delivery under Article 197(1) and (2) ЗЗД. Conscious concealment by the seller leads to the special three-year period, and the provision permits contractual extension or shortening. These distinctions require examination of the actual contract and evidence of concealment. Discovery late in the first year does not automatically restart the ordinary period. A construction guarantee given by another company also does not, merely by existing, replace the buyer's sale-based deadline against the seller.
The ordinary defect period under Article 265(3) ЗЗД is a different matter. That provision distinguishes six months for ordinary work from five years for construction work. A buyer's sale-based claim under Article 197 ЗЗД has its own period and starting point. A guarantee can accordingly remain relevant when another claim is already contested as late, but that does not mean the owner can transfer any claim to any defendant merely by calling it a guarantee claim. The contractual relationship, any transfer of rights and the precise undertaking still determine who can demand what from whom.
A structural defect affects an element performing a structural function, while an aesthetic departure may concern finish, colour or alignment. The appearance alone is not decisive. A fine crack may reveal a structural movement, while a conspicuous surface mark may affect appearance only. Technical examination should explain the function of the failed element and the consequences for the agreed use.
The distinction affects both the appropriate remedy and the relevant guarantee category. It does not mean that nonstructural defects are legally irrelevant. Poor acoustic insulation or recurrent water penetration can seriously impair normal occupation without being a defect of the load-bearing structure. Conversely, an owner’s preference for a different finish does not establish departure from the agreed specification.
The contractual standard may be more demanding than the minimum technical rule. A specified sound insulation performance, waterproof finish or particular material can form part of the agreed result. The customer must show that the requirement was incorporated into the contract rather than appearing only in preliminary discussions. Conversely, a contractor cannot establish proper performance merely by proving that some usable structure exists. The court needs to compare the delivered work with the actual obligation. Drawings, specifications, approved variations and correspondence explaining the intended use can therefore determine whether an apparent imperfection is legally a defect.
Not automatically. Present ownership does not prove succession to every personal claim under the original building contract. A later buyer should establish whether the claim was transferred, whether a guarantee undertaking benefits that buyer or whether another independent legal basis applies. The buyer’s own claim against its seller remains a separate question.
The pleading must connect a particular defendant with a particular obligation. A seller's liability for a materially defective property under Articles 193 to 195 ЗЗД differs from a contractor's liability for defective commissioned work under Article 265. The claimant must show the contractual position relied upon, including any legally effective transfer or succession to a claim. Being the present owner is important, but it does not automatically establish ownership of every personal contractual right arising during the building's history. This question should be resolved before technical evidence is used to support a demand against the wrong party.
Tell us where you live, how your business works and what you want to change. We will help you identify the questions to resolve and the next steps to consider.
A neighbour does not need to have ordered the construction to claim for independently caused damage. The relevant route may follow Articles 45 and 49 of the Obligations and Contracts Act (Закон за задълженията и договорите, ЗЗД), depending on the wrongful act and the person responsible for assigned work. A limited comparison is the protective function of defective-dwelling duties in England and Wales, although the conditions of section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 are different. A Bulgarian claim must connect the particular work to the neighbour’s actual loss.
Bulgarian civil litigation is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (Граждански процесуален кодекс, ГПК). In England and Wales, Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules likewise regulates the use of expert evidence, but the Bulgarian procedure determines the steps in a Bulgarian court. A party generally proves the facts supporting its claims and objections under Article 154(1) ГПК. The claimant therefore needs evidence of the defect, the relevant obligation, the causal connection and the amount sought. The mere existence of a recent construction project does not allocate every later building problem to the contractor.
An expert should be asked questions that can change the legal outcome. For a leaking roof, those questions may concern whether the failure lies in the membrane, its junctions, the substrate, drainage or a later penetration. The examination should distinguish construction departures from subsequent interference and inadequate maintenance. It should also address whether the failure was detectable through ordinary inspection at acceptance or delivery. Those technical findings help the court apply legal rules about hidden defects and notice. Asking an expert only whether the roof is good or bad leaves important elements of the claim unanswered.
Acceptance documents require careful treatment. In Judgment No. 9 of 5 June 2017, Second Commercial Division, commercial case No. 2690/2015, the Supreme Court of Cassation explained acceptance through both factual receipt and approval and examined the significance of conduct in light of objections. This means that a signed handover document, payment or use should be analysed in context. The owner should preserve reservations and the sequence of communications rather than assume that every signature waived all defects or that every later complaint undid an earlier unconditional acceptance.
Where repair will destroy the relevant condition, evidence preservation under Article 207 ГПК can be considered. The statutory basis is a danger that evidence will be lost or its collection become difficult. The application should identify the particular evidence, the dispute to which it relates and the reason examination cannot safely wait. Removing waterproofing, cutting into a structural junction or replacing a failed installation can present such a problem. The procedure is directed at securing evidence, not at obtaining an early general declaration that the contractor must pay the entire claim.
Emergency measures should be documented separately from permanent correction. Temporary protection can limit loss without concealing all evidence of the original failure. Where materials must be removed, photographs before and during removal, labelled samples where practicable and a record of who performed the work may preserve useful information. The owner should not retain dangerous material or delay essential protection merely for litigation. The legal question is whether reasonable steps were taken in the circumstances, with enough evidence to explain why the intervention was necessary and how it affected later examination.
The compensation rules reinforce that practical distinction. ЗЗД excludes loss that the creditor could have avoided through reasonable care under Article 83(2). An owner who reasonably protects the property can explain those costs as a response to the defect. An owner who allows a manageable leak to continue should expect questions about the avoidable portion of the loss.
The causal explanation must distinguish the defect itself from every consequence claimed. A failed membrane may explain ceiling damage, but does not automatically prove that all furniture in the apartment was destroyed or that a year of rent was lost. The investigation should address alternative causes, the affected period and what reasonable protective measures could have prevented.
The remedy should be chosen deliberately. A customer seeking free correction under Article 265(1) ЗЗД should specify the defective result and an appropriate opportunity to cure. A customer seeking necessary repair expenses should explain the proposed works and their connection with the failure. A reduction of remuneration has a different function and may be pleaded against a contractor's payment claim. The available alternatives should not become an indiscriminate demand for complete repayment, free reconstruction and the same repair budget as additional compensation. The claim must make clear which outcome is sought and how any alternatives relate.
A termination demand needs its own foundation. Substantial defects that make the work unsuitable for its ordinary or agreed purpose fall within Article 265(2) ЗЗД. The seriousness of the condition, its practical consequences and the legal communication of termination must be established. Judgment No. 99 of 11 July 2017 of the Supreme Court of Cassation, First Commercial Division, commercial case No. 2483/2016, distinguishes an expressed termination declaration from simple nonpayment in the general work-contract setting. The case was not a building dispute, so its relevance is that contractual distinction, rather than a technical standard for construction defects.
The amount claimed needs a transparent calculation. Repair expenses should identify quantities, unit costs, access works and necessary reinstatement. Damage to contents should be connected with the event and valued in a way that accounts for the actual property affected. Temporary accommodation requires evidence that the premises could not reasonably be used and that the expense and duration were justified. Any improvement beyond the original obligation should be disclosed. The court must be able to see why each amount follows from the defendant's breach and whether another requested remedy already compensates the same loss.
Property insurance and the builder’s liability are separate routes. The policy may cover resulting water damage while excluding the cost of correcting defective workmanship itself. Coverage therefore depends on the wording and insured event, not simply on the fact that a builder may be responsible. The insurance claim should preserve the same photographs, inspection records and repair breakdown used to explain the construction loss.
After paying property compensation, the insurer may succeed to the insured’s claim within the paid amount and ordinary assessment expenses under Article 410, paragraph 1 of the Insurance Code (Кодекс за застраховането, КЗ). The broader insurance-contract regime is comparable in function, rather than detail, to the Insurance Act 2015 in England and Wales. The owner should distinguish the compensated portion from any remaining deductible or uninsured loss and cooperate with the insurer under paragraph 3. A settlement releasing the builder should be checked before signature because it can affect rights involved in that recovery.
A technical expert identifies cause, conformity and repair requirements. A civil court decides the disputed obligation and remedy. The first-instance court is selected by the claim’s nature and value under Articles 103 and 104 of ГПК, with the applicable territorial rules separately examined. A claim for repair costs is not automatically a real-property title claim merely because a building is involved.
A commissioning authority does not ordinarily award the owner the contractor’s civil debt. A complaint about construction legality and a contractual compensation claim may therefore serve different purposes. The requested court order should identify the works to be performed or the sum and loss for which payment is sought. ARG can arrange the assessment and representation through appropriately authorised Bulgarian attorneys, supported by the necessary engineering expertise.
The burden of proof under Article 154(1) ГПК applies to both claims and objections. A customer should be prepared to prove the facts underlying the selected defect remedy, while a contractor asserting a different cause or relevant customer conduct must substantiate its own position under the applicable rules. The court's expert should address disputed technical matters within the evidence available. It does not decide the legal meaning of the contract or determine standing in place of the court. Questions should therefore separate engineering conclusions from the legal consequences that depend on them.
Where the owner is abroad, the substance of the notice remains the same, but proof and authority need particular attention. A representative should have a clear mandate for inspections, receiving proposals and making statements. Permission to arrange access should not silently become authority to accept a final settlement or acknowledge that all defects have been remedied. Technical documents and communications should be kept in complete form so that translations can be prepared where required. The objective is to allow necessary action on site while ensuring that decisions affecting the owner's legal rights are made knowingly and can later be proved.
The timing rules depend on the claim. A buyer must inspect and notify under Article 194 ЗЗД, with prompt notice after discovery for hidden defects. A construction customer must comply with the acceptance and hidden-defect requirements in Article 264 ЗЗД. Evidence of sending is only part of the matter because the contents and receipt may also be disputed. Keeping the complete message, attachments, delivery record and any reply helps establish what the other party was told. A telephone discussion can be followed by an accurate written record, but a later summary should not be presented as contemporaneous proof that does not actually exist.
Limitation should be examined before waiting for further negotiations. The sale regime provides an ordinary one-year period for immovable property from delivery under Article 197 ЗЗД, subject to its special rules and contractual terms. Construction work has the specific five-year defect period under Article 265(3), distinct from ordinary work and separate guarantee arrangements. The claimant should not assume that repeated assurances of a future visit preserve every claim indefinitely. The relevant delivery, acceptance, discovery and communication dates should be established independently for each legal basis and each potential defendant.
Compare the related procedures in this category, including their requirements and the stage at which you need them.
.svg)
.svg)
