Decision No. 4 of 28 March 2024 on Constitutional Case No. 16/2023
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request by the Supreme Bar Council for the establishment of the unconstitutionality of §3 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Forest Act (promulgated in SG No. 19 of 08 March 2011, last amended SG No. 106 of 22 December 2023; TFP of the Forest Act).
In the request, the principal argument for unconstitutionality is the alleged conflict of the provision with Article 4, paragraph 1 (the principle of the rule of law), Article 17, paragraphs 1 - 3 (inviolability of the right to property), Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 (equality before the law and prohibition of discrimination), as well as with the Preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria.
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
Given their significance as a national asset, forests constitute a specific object of the right to property, with respect to which the State traditionally exercises enhanced control.
The legal possibility of excluding land from the forest fund in the Republic of Bulgaria has always been extremely limited.
The protection and reproduction of the environment is a value of constitutional rank, and forests are one of the key factors in safeguarding this value, as they play a vital and irreplaceable role in ecology, and specifically with regard to climate, water resources, biodiversity, and soil resilience.
Forests form part of Bulgaria’s natural resources. As such, they are protected under Article 15 of the Constitution. Forests contribute to a healthy and favourable environment, which citizens are entitled to under Article 53 of the Constitution and which everyone is obliged to preserve. Precisely because the legal status of forests requires due regard to their significance as a public good accessible to all, ownership of forests has traditionally been subject to numerous statutory restrictions.
The contested provision of §3 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Forest Act of 2011 stipulates that the designated use of land plots within forest territories acquired from the State by natural persons, legal persons, or municipalities as a result of exchanges carried out prior to the date of promulgation of the Act in the State Gazette shall not be subject to change under the procedure laid down in this Act, and that construction may not be carried out on such plots.
The Court finds that this restriction is constitutionally justified in view of the specific characteristics of the mode of acquisition by which the property rights of the addressees of the contested provision were established. This mode of acquisition constitutes an exception to the general legal regime.
The differentiated treatment of owners who have acquired their rights under a facilitated procedure, through the establishment of restrictions consistent with the purpose of the statute under which the acquisition was carried out, is in the present case constitutionally compliant, as it secures fairness as an expression of the rule-of-law principle under Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, all the more so given that the restriction is aimed at achieving an objective of significant public interest - namely, the protection of the national natural heritage. Since acquisition under Article 15b of the Forest Act of 1997 (repealed) was carried out under a procedure different from that prescribed by law, with the purpose of changing the designated use of forest territories and implementing investment intentions with respect to them, such owners cannot have legitimate legal expectations that they will be able to benefit from the legal possibility to change the designated use of the forest territories acquired by them - an option available only to owners who have acquired their rights under the general regime.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution (competence to rule on requests for establishing the unconstitutionality of laws), the Constitutional Court rejects the request of the Supreme Bar Council to establish the unconstitutionality of the provision of §3 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Forest Act (promulgated in SG No. 19 of 08 March 2011, last amended SG No. 106 of 22 December 2023).
Председател: Павлина Панова