Summary
A provision of the municipal parking ordinance in Asenovgrad, which allowed a paid “official subscription” regime exclusively for legal entities, has been declared unlawful by the Plovdiv Administrative Court and finally struck down by the Supreme Administrative Court. Both instances relied on the same ground: substantial procedural violations in the adoption of the text itself, not any judgment on whether its content was reasonable.
The case was brought by a group of citizens against the Asenovgrad Municipal Council. The Municipal Council appealed the first-instance ruling to the Supreme Administrative Court, but the cassation instance fully upheld the lower court’s findings. The central public question is what, exactly, was skipped in adopting the ordinance — and why those omissions were enough to bring down the entire provision, without the court ever having to weigh whether the text itself made sense.
What Has Been Established So Far
- The draft ordinance was published only in the “Normative Acts” section of the municipality’s website, but what was uploaded there was not a standalone draft act — it was a memo from the deputy mayor, a section where citizens do not typically go looking for public consultation notices.
- The public consultation was announced on April 9, 2025, with a statutory deadline for proposals set at May 9, 2025 — but the memo submitting the draft to the Municipal Council was registered on May 7, 2025, two days before its own deadline had even expired.
- On June 25, 2025, nine citizens, acting as private individuals, filed a complaint against Article 33(1) of the ordinance with the Plovdiv Administrative Court.
- Under Decision No. 2660 of March 9, 2026, the provision was struck down in its entirety as unlawful.
- The court found that mandatory opinions from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities and the State Agency “Road Safety” were missing at the time the text was adopted.
- The court also found a violation of Articles 12 and 35 of the Administrative Procedure Code, concerning the factual and legal justification required for administrative acts.
- The municipality presented the court with consultation correspondence with the Agency for Persons with Disabilities from March–April 2025, but the court held that the existence of an opinion was not the same as its actually being discussed and weighed in the adoption procedure.
- The Asenovgrad Municipal Council was ordered to pay the court costs.
- The Municipal Council appealed on cassation, maintaining that the consultation procedure had been properly followed.
- Under final Decision No. 6815 of June 18, 2026, in administrative case No. 4869/2026, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance ruling.
- The decision is final and not subject to further appeal.
Timeline
| Date | Action | Institution/Party | Document or Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| March 28 – April 14, 2025 | Consultation opinion from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities sent and received on the draft | Asenovgrad Municipality ↔ Agency for Persons with Disabilities | Consultation correspondence |
| April 9, 2025 | Public consultation on the draft announced, deadline May 9, 2025; a memo, not a draft ordinance, is published in the “Normative Acts” section of the website | Asenovgrad Municipality | Municipal website publication |
| May 7, 2025 | Memo submitted for a vote on the ordinance | Deputy Mayor → Asenovgrad Municipal Council | Memo |
| May 21, 2025 | Ordinance adopted, with Article 33(1) restricting official subscriptions to legal entities | Asenovgrad Municipal Council | Decision No. 741 |
| June 25, 2025 | Complaint filed against Article 33(1) | Nine citizens → Plovdiv Administrative Court | Administrative case No. 1316/2025 |
| March 9, 2026 | Provision struck down as unlawful | Plovdiv Administrative Court | Decision No. 2660 |
| After March 9, 2026 | Municipal Council appeals the ruling | Asenovgrad Municipal Council → Supreme Administrative Court | Cassation appeal |
| June 18, 2026 | Annulment upheld as final | Supreme Administrative Court | Decision No. 6815, administrative case No. 4869/2026 |
What the Documents Show
Public Consultation, Filed Where No One Looks
An inspection of the material published on the municipality’s website shows that no standalone draft ordinance was uploaded to the “Normative Acts” section — only a memo from the deputy mayor. The Normative Acts Law requires publication of the draft itself, together with its statement of reasons, so that citizens have a clear and comprehensible subject to comment on. A memo addressed to the Municipal Council was never conceived as a text for public consultation; it was an internal document charting the act’s path to a council session.
In other words: the door to public participation was technically open, but behind it there was no room — only a corridor leading straight to the council chamber.
This finding is a documented observation by InstiGuard, based on a review of the relevant municipal website page as of the date of verification; it supplements, but is not merged with, the reasoning of the published court decisions.
The Deadline That Expired Before It Expired
The public consultation was announced on April 9, 2025, with a statutory 30-day deadline for proposals expiring on May 9, 2025. The memo submitting the draft for a council vote was registered on May 7, 2025 — meaning the consultation had not formally concluded, yet the text was already on its way to a session.
Thirty days is a fairly specific number — not easily mistaken for twenty-eight. And yet the memo managed to find the Municipal Council’s door two days early, as if the public consultation had a more pressing appointment elsewhere.
The Citizens’ Complaint
The complaint, filed by nine private individuals on June 25, 2025, challenged the lawfulness of Article 33(1) of the ordinance and sought its complete annulment. The case was registered as administrative case No. 1316/2025 before the Plovdiv Administrative Court.
The First-Instance Ruling
Decision No. 2660 of March 9, 2026, struck down Article 33(1) in full. The court based its ruling on two categories of procedural failure: the absence of mandatory opinions from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities and the State Agency “Road Safety,” and a violation of Articles 12 and 35 of the Administrative Procedure Code.
Before the court, the municipality presented consultation correspondence with the Agency for Persons with Disabilities from March–April 2025, arguing this satisfied the requirement under Article 10(3)(9) of the Persons with Disabilities Act. The court held that the existence of a letter is not equivalent to actual consultation — the opinion was never discussed or weighed within the act’s adoption procedure.
The court did not weigh in on whether the provision was fair, reasonable, or economically justified. It struck down the text because a step was skipped during its creation — a step the law treats not as a formality, but as a precondition for the very validity of the act. Sometimes a case is decided not in the courtroom, but in a drawer, where the competent agency’s opinion was never actually invited into the decision at all.
The Municipal Council was ordered to pay the court costs of the proceedings.
The Cassation Proceedings and the Supreme Administrative Court’s Ruling
The Asenovgrad Municipal Council appealed the Plovdiv Administrative Court’s ruling on cassation, maintaining that the consultation procedure with the Agency for Persons with Disabilities had been followed and that the existence of a written opinion was sufficient for lawfulness. Under Decision No. 6815 of June 18, 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected that argument and upheld the lower court’s ruling.
The decision is final within the meaning of Article 297(1) of the Administrative Procedure Code. The annulment of Article 33(1) is confirmed at the highest possible judicial instance — with no further avenue for appeal.
Position of the Citizen/Complainant
The complainants maintained that the provision was adopted in violation of the procedural requirements for rule-making, including the manner in which the draft was published for public consultation, and that excluding private individuals from the “official subscription” regime was unjustified. Their position on the procedural violations was fully upheld by the court at both instances.
Position of the Institutions
Asenovgrad Municipal Council
The Municipal Council maintained that the ordinance was lawfully adopted, pointing to the exchanged correspondence with the Agency for Persons with Disabilities as evidence that consultation had taken place. This position was argued through to the end — from the first instance to the cassation appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court — and was accepted by neither judicial panel.
Plovdiv Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court
Both judicial instances found the same procedural failures in the adoption of the text, including the conclusion that the formal existence of consultation correspondence does not substitute for the opinion’s actual discussion within the procedure. The Supreme Administrative Court’s decision is final and binding on all parties and bodies, including the municipal administration.
What Remains Unanswered
- Can the memo published in the “Normative Acts” section be considered a sufficient form of publishing a draft normative act within the meaning of the Normative Acts Law?
- Why were the mandatory opinions from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities and the State Agency “Road Safety” never actually discussed in the adoption procedure, given that correspondence with the former agency existed?
- Why was the memo submitting the ordinance to the Municipal Council registered on May 7, 2025 — before the 30-day public consultation deadline expired on May 9, 2025?
- Was a preliminary legal review of the draft conducted before it was submitted for a vote, and if so, by whom?
Why This Case Matters
Ordinances adopted by municipal councils touch citizens’ daily lives directly and tangibly — in this case, quite literally, in the place where they park their cars. This case shows that judicial oversight of municipal rule-making is not an abstract procedure but a functioning mechanism: two consecutive judicial panels held that skipping a mandatory procedure is sufficient grounds for an entire provision to fall out of the legal order, regardless of its content.
It is also a good illustration of why procedural rules in the adoption of normative acts are not bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. They exist so that the opinion of bodies tasked with weighing questions like accessibility for people with disabilities, or road safety, is actually heard — genuinely heard, not merely filed in a section no one opens — before a rule starts applying to everyone.
Status and Next Steps
Status as of publication: the proceedings have concluded with a final court decision. Article 33(1) of the ordinance is annulled and produces no legal effect.
Next steps: the practical implementation of the ruling — including how the municipality and its affiliated structures handle private individuals’ access to the parking subscription regime after the annulment — will be the subject of a separate publication.