July 20, 2026 by justice-guard Leave a Comment (Edit)
A municipal rule that limited service parking subscriptions to legal entities was annulled after judicial review. The case raises questions about the quality of local law‑making, the oversight exercised by the Regional Governor, and the practice applied after the court’s decision.
In May 2025, the Municipal Council of Asenovgrad adopted, by Decision No. 741, a new ordinance on the organisation and control of parking and stopping of motor vehicles. Among its provisions, Article 33(1) regulated a paid parking regime through a “service subscription” available to legal entities.
From the moment of adoption, questions arose as to whether the required procedures had been followed and whether the distinction between natural persons and legal entities was sufficiently justified. A signal was submitted to the Regional Governor of Plovdiv Region, who requested information and an official position from the municipality.
The correspondence available to us does not show that the Regional Governor exercised the power to challenge the provision before the administrative court. This does not, in itself, prove that the Regional Governor acted unlawfully; it does, however, raise the question whether administrative supervision was adequate, given that the provision was later annulled by the court.
Citizens challenged Article 33(1) in court. In Judgment No. 2660 of 9 March 2026, the Administrative Court of Plovdiv annulled the provision, holding that, when it was adopted, there was no evidence of the mandatory opinions from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities and the State Agency for Road Safety. The court classified the absence of these opinions as a substantial violation of the rules of administrative procedure.
The Municipal Council appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. The documents in the case file indicate that, in final Judgment No. 6815 of 18 June 2026 in Administrative Case No. 4869/2026, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the annulment.
The case shows that a municipal ordinance can affect a wide range of citizens and organisations, but it cannot be adopted without strict compliance with procedural requirements. Mandatory consultations are not a mere formality; they are safeguards ensuring that parking rules take account of road safety and the rights of persons with disabilities.
After the final court decision, questions were addressed to the Mayor of Asenovgrad Municipality and to the municipal company Eco Transport Asenovgrad EOOD. These questions asked how practice had changed after the annulment and whether the service subscription regime was being offered on equal terms.
Eco Transport Asenovgrad EOOD replied in writing that it does not provide service subscriptions to natural persons and that a different regime applies to them – a preferential parking permit linked to their permanent address. This raises a new question: on what current legal basis, and under which publicly stated criteria, is this distinction applied after Article 33(1) has been removed from the ordinance.
Inspectorate “Parking and Garages” – the municipal activity that previously managed municipal car parks and contracts for parking spaces – has informed that its functions have been transferred to the newly established municipal company “Eco Transport Asenovgrad” EOOD. This transfer took place in two stages: a founding decision in July 2025 and an operational decision in February 2026 to move the activities. From that point onwards, “Eco Transport Asenovgrad” has been indicated as the sole competent addressee for all questions related to paid parking.
A letter with specific questions about implementation of the court decision and about the municipality’s internal measures was sent to the Mayor. Receipt of the letter was confirmed; as of the publication date, we do not have a written response to these questions.
This case study does not examine individual contracts, personal data, or potential compensation claims. It focuses on a matter of public importance: how municipal rules are adopted, how they are supervised, and how public authorities explain their practice after a final judicial annulment.