DEAR MADAM SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY,
DEAR MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY,
We address you guided by the principles of the market economy and the freedom of entrepreneurial initiative, as well as by an understanding of the need for structural changes, improvements, and reforms through sustainable and coordinated policies in Bulgaria’s “Agriculture” and “Food Security” sectors.
We are fully aware that inflation rates give rise to political and social tensions, and that expectations have been raised regarding their management for the benefit of Bulgarian citizens. However, we do not agree that the entire focus of the legislative and executive branches’ efforts should be concentrated solely on one of the key segments of the exceptionally long and complex chain of getting food from farms to the tables of Bulgarian citizens.
Upon analyzing the proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the Competition Protection Act (CPA), we conclude that they significantly restrict the constitutional principle of free enterprise to the detriment of consumers, suppliers, and merchants. Entire sections of the text completely abolish legitimate contractual practices that are in effect in developed market economies around the world and replace them with unacceptable interference in supply chain relationships that far exceed the legitimate public interest and the principle of proportionality.
Once again, we emphasize that the 52nd National Assembly continues the bad practice of rushing through extremely serious legislative changes without the necessary impact assessment and without in-depth public discussion with stakeholders.
These are just the major points in the cited amendments to the Competition Protection Act (CPA) and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) that cause concern for us as a business association, as well as for other legitimate industry and professional organizations, and individual players in the Bulgarian food market.
Here, we will focus on some of the newly introduced provisions that require fundamental revision or, in some cases, we even call for their removal.
The Competition Protection Act introduces an unacceptable infringement on the right to defense and due process:
The draft law provides for a reversal of the burden of proof regarding the new types of violations – the trader must prove that they have not committed a violation under the new provisions of the Competition Protection Act, or else they face extremely high fines.
Specifically, Articles 21d and 37g grossly violate the right to a fair trial and the right to a defense, under which the investigated party is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Thus, due to the CPC’s “suspicions” – without the commission having proven any violation – the trader may be fined up to 10% of their annual turnover.
The amendments violate the principle in administrative law that the administrative authority ex officio gathers evidence, assesses it, and, if there are grounds for doing so, imposes a sanction: i.e., the burden of proving the violation lies with the administrative authority, and the parties to the proceedings are obligated to cooperate with it (Article 36 of the Administrative Procedure Code) . This principle is also adopted in the Competition Protection Act, and compared to other authorities, the CPC has the broadest powers and an effective toolkit for gathering evidence.
The Competition Protection Act introduces impermissible interference in commercial policy and pricing through the imposition of “provisional measures”
The new Article 77a creates a basis for arbitrary action, granting the CPC the right to impose, as “provisional measures,” obligations to cease or modify commercial terms and obligations to change pricing policies. In practice, this means that if an investigation is launched, the CPC will be able to compel a trader to change its commercial policy and prices – a direct and utterly disproportionate interference in the pricing of private entities, which amounts to state-set prices. Such anti-market regulation contradicts the stated objectives of the Draft Amendment to the Competition Protection Act (CPA) to ensure the functioning of market mechanisms.
The Competition Protection Act introduces the creation of a new Central Registry for traceability along the supply chain – yet another extremely heavy administrative burden that creates a risk of increased costs for business operators in the absence of any guarantees for the protection of trade secrets among competitors
This introduction of supply chain traceability will in fact increase the risk of misuse of sensitive information among competitors and will be a breeding ground for corruption.
Of course, this introduction is yet another example of an extremely serious administrative burden on business.
New definitions of unfair commercial practices are introduced into the Competition Protection Act
With the amendments to Chapter VIIb concerning unfair commercial practices in the food supply chain, the Draft Amendment to the Competition Protection Act introduces 20 highly controversial new definitions of prohibited practices. Some of them (items 18, 24, and 26 of Article 37b, paragraph 1) render entirely legitimate commercial conduct impermissible, conduct that forms the basis of competition among market participants and lies at the heart of proven business models in the developed world.
We emphasize that bonuses for suppliers upon achieving a certain turnover are agreed upon in advance but are paid only after the target is met or at the end of the year; this is standard commercial practice.
There is a real risk that this could lead to fewer promotions and higher prices for goods if the negotiation of a supplier’s participation in promotional price reductions is restricted.
The requirement to standardize markups for comparable products is economically unsound and contradicts the principles of a market economy. The application of such a requirement would lead to higher prices or a smaller product range, which is detrimental to consumers.
The Consumer Protection Act addresses the prohibition on price increases without an objective economic justification
The initial one-month ban was extended to 12 months (until August 2026). Price restrictions for such a long period are unprecedented and have not been introduced by any other European country that has adopted the euro. They harm the competitive environment by replacing market-based price-setting mechanisms with administrative restrictions.
Furthermore, the Draft Amendment to the Consumer Protection Act proposes a further extension of the ban on free pricing by 12 months (to a total of 24 months) and its “transfer” to the Consumer Protection Act, thereby completely removing it from the framework of an exceptional restriction accompanying the introduction of the euro.
DEAR MS. DOCOVA,
DEAR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT,
The measures outlined, while not exhaustive, will harm consumer interests and significantly impact the financial condition of companies in the processing and retail sectors without simultaneously resolving any of the deep-seated, structural problems in food production in Bulgaria or the country’s food security.
In our efforts to engage in dialogue with the country’s institutions to improve the investment climate and business environment in Bulgaria, as well as to seek ways to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the Bulgarian economy with all the positive effects this entails on the social, political, and economic spheres, we believe that the proposed amendments to the Competition Protection Act (CPA) and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), as currently packaged, carry solely an inflationary impact, and their communicative effect and resonance among economic actors – not only in this sector but in others as well – will undermine investor confidence in the country and damage Bulgaria’s image as a good place to do business, as well as the well-being of its citizens.
We remain open to dialogue on this and subsequent topics concerning Bulgaria’s competitiveness, deficit control, tackling inflation, and other economic and social issues.
Joint Position of:
- American Chamber of Commerce in Bulgaria (Ref. No.: 26124 / June 4, 2026)
- Belgium-Bulgaria-Luxembourg Business Club;
- Bulgarian-Spanish Chamber of Commerce;
- Bulgarian-Swiss Chamber of Commerce;
- Bulgarian-Czech Chamber of Commerce;
- German-Bulgarian Chamber of Industry and Commerce;
- Italian Chamber of Commerce in Bulgaria;
- Confindustria Bulgaria;
- Dutch Chamber of Commerce in Bulgaria;
- Hellenic Business Council in Bulgaria;
- Bulgarian-Hellenic Chamber of Commerce and Industry.