REMEMBRANCE IN TIME - Index of

Nikolai PRODANOV: Private Propety as Basic Value of the Democratic Society… 303
The attitude of almost all political parties in the country to the private property of
foreigners, non-Bulgarian residents and to the private property of Bulgarian nationals
who are not ethnic Bulgarians and Orthodox Christians is disrespectful.
As early as the late nineteenth century, the authorities attempted to thwart the settlement
of Jews in Dobrudja, making obstacles to the formalization of the documents evidencing
ownership over the lands they had purchased. The main motive for this policy is that non-
Bulgarian population should not be allowed to settle in the border areas, because in
extreme conditions their loyalty cannot not be relied upon. The escalation of this attitude
lead to an amendment in 1906 of the Law on Rural Municipalities, thus prohibiting
foreign nationals to own land in Bulgaria at all. This prohibition was retained until the
end of the Tarnovo Constitution. In March 1917, at the height of World War, the
parliamentary group of the Bulgarian Agrarian People’s Union made an unsuccessful
attempt to extend the prohibition through legislation to the covered real estate.
In the deportation of the Greek population of Bulgaria in 1906 and 1914 the official
government authorities (in particular the respective ministers of justice) gave instructions
to produce obstacles to the Greeks willing to sell their properties.
The state had an extreme attitude to the land owned by the Bulgarian Muslims in the
areas appended to the Bulgarian territory after the Balkan War. A considerable part of
them fled from the area of military actions, abandoning their property. Those, who later
returned to their native places, found their lands confiscated by the state under a special
law. Years later they cultivate their lands and pay a rent to the state at that.
Also extreme is the state policy regarding the private ownership of Bulgarian Jews
during World War II. The anti-Jewish legislation incorporates a strong confiscatory
element, whereas some of nationalized properties have not been returned to their owners
after September 9, 1944.
* * *
Certain Bulgarian governments took the liberty to prosecute their political opponents by
encroachment on their property. After 1923 a significant part of the property of the
former Prime Minister Alexander Stamboliyski was confiscated on the grounds that it
was acquired with stolen public funds. Although the latter statement was probably
accurate, the confiscation was a result of a fair trial. Later, during World War II, in some
cases the prosecution of participants in antigovernment resistance was accompanied by
physical annihilation of their property.
* * *
Over 8 out of the 68 years of existence of the Tarnovo Constitution, Bulgaria was at
war. One of the most important aspects of communication between the state and the
population during these years is the various requisitioning of all sorts of chattel, food,
cattle, etc., principally intended for the needs of the army. These actions were in
implementation of the relevant provisions of the requisitioning laws, which do not
provide for compensation in advance. Perhaps such behavior is acceptable in view of the
war realities, but finds no legal basis whatsoever in the text of the fundamental law.
* * *
The Bulgarian state during that time failed to form a legal consciousness among his
citizen that certain purchase transactions must be carried out through complex formalities,
whose objective is protect their interests and the public interest. I mean the circumstance
that in those decades real estate transactions were persistently performed (mainly in
agricultural land) through the so-called private purchase deeds, bypassing the notarised