District Court – Plovdiv denies bicycle return claim over disputed permission to keep it

The District Court – Plovdiv has denied Elena Dobreva’s request for an order requiring Martin Kolev to return a bicycle, finding that she had not proved a better right to possess it. The court dismissed the claim and ordered no payment, but did not find that Martin had conclusively received the bicycle as a gift.

The dispute turned on whether Elena’s permission to keep the bicycle meant temporary storage during renovation or a permanent transfer. The court found both interpretations possible, but the unresolved meaning was insufficient to support the return order Elena sought.

The decisive evidence was a screenshot supplied by Martin. It showed Elena telling him he could keep the bicycle because she had no room, but omitted the preceding and following messages. Although presented three times during the hearing, it remained one piece of evidence, not three independent confirmations.

The court accepted that the displayed words supported Martin’s understanding. Equally, the reference to a lack of room was consistent with Elena’s temporary-storage explanation. The screenshot mentioned neither renovation nor a return date, leaving the central question unanswered.

Under the rules applied in the judgment, Elena had to support her request with specific evidence showing the stronger right to possession. Her later explanation of her intention was not independent proof of the original arrangement. Her refusal to explain the agreement further did not prove Martin was right, but left the ambiguity unresolved.

Martin’s account was likewise not independent proof of Elena’s intention. The court declined to fill the missing context for either side. Because Elena bore the burden of establishing entitlement to return, the evidential gap defeated her claim without establishing Martin’s ownership.

Elena sought immediate return, arguing that the renovation was temporary and that she had never intended a gift. Her position was that Martin was holding the bicycle only while the work continued.

Martin argued that the message reasonably conveyed permission to keep the bicycle as his own. He acknowledged that he had no surrounding messages confirming a permanent gift, but asked the court to deny return, or at least decline immediate return, given the uncertainty.

Elena’s account was that she had bought the bicycle and left it with Martin during renovation of her Plovdiv flat. The judgment did not treat the earlier purchase as established: no purchase document or other ownership proof was supplied. Even an earlier purchase would not by itself resolve whether she later gave the bicycle away.

Although the preparatory material described later collection messages, the judgment recorded no other message or supporting record before the court about the arrangement. The dismissal therefore rests on the limited hearing evidence, not a conclusive determination that Elena intended a gift.