Important Clarification by SAC upon appeal by S&B Law Firm

Through Judgment No. 1649 of 13 February 2026 under administrative case No. 9738/2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria (Fifth Division) delivered a precedent-setting ruling on a long-debated and previously unsettled issue in Bulgarian administrative law: how forest land status may be restored where an approved change of land use for an investment project has not been implemented. S&B successfully secured the annulment of the Minister’s refusal and the remittal of the case for a new decision in line with the Court’s binding instructions.

The Case

The dispute was about private state property forest territory which designation was changed in connection with a major infrastructure project into urbanised land and a building permit was issued. However, construction works were never commenced, the project was effectively abandoned and the statutory deadlines expired, upon which the owner sought to have the territory status changed back to forest. The Minister of Agriculture and Food refused, arguing that Bulgarian law does not expressly regulate a procedure for “reverse” transformation from urbanised land back to forest territory and such refusal was upheld by the Sofia Administrative Court.

Our litigation strategy focused on challenging the formalistic administrative approach and advancing a principled interpretation of the Forest Act and the Administrative Procedure Code.

The Supreme Administrative Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Administrative Court fully endorsed S&B Law Firm’s line of reasoning and held that:

• The administrative authority had failed to comply with the principles of objective truth and ex officio investigation by not clarifying the factual condition of the properties.
• A regulatory gap cannot justify a refusal to resolve the legal issue presented.
• Where necessary, the rules governing change of land use under the Forest Act may be applied by analogy.
• The authority must provide a clear legal qualification of the land’s status and, if required, indicate the proper procedural path for restoring forest classification.

The Court annulled both the first-instance judgment and the ministerial refusal and remitted the case for a new decision in compliance with its binding interpretative guidance.

Broader Impact

This ruling is of substantial importance establishes a workable legal framework for cases involving unimplemented investment projects on former forest land and rejects a purely formalistic reading of the law and strengthens legal certainty, reinforces the obligation of administrative authorities to act proactively in situations of legislative silence, and opens the door to restoration of forest status where factual and legal conditions so require.

This outcome reflects our law firm’s continued commitment to complex regulatory and administrative litigation, combining doctrinal analysis, strategic use of analogy, and rigorous procedural advocacy to achieve meaningful and precedent-setting results for our clients to achieve the above landmark victory.