AmCham Bulgaria’s Position Regarding the Act Amending and Supplementing the Protection Against Discrimination Act

The American Chamber of Commerce in Bulgaria shared the following position, regarding the Draft Bill Amending and Supplementing the Act Amending and Supplementing the Protection Against Discrimination Act (PAD Act), published on the Council of Ministers’ Public Consultation Portal on May 19, 2026.

In short, AmCham shares the following comments:

  1. Regarding §1 of the Amendment to the Protection Against Discrimination Act:
    • Information regarding individual wages constitute personal data within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation – and, in accordance with the recommendations of the European Data Protection Supervisor, employers should take measures to protect this data and disclose it only to employees who need access to it to perform their job duties.
  2. Regarding §2 of the Draft Amendment to the Protection Against Discrimination Act:
    • With regard to the new paragraph 2 – we believe that this requirement for gender-neutral job titles goes beyond the requirements of Directive (EU) 2023/970, which stipulates such requirements only for job postings. Furthermore, due to its grammatical rules, the Bulgarian language will lead to problems in the interpretation and application of this provision. Therefore, we propose that its scope of application be limited to what is provided for in the directive, specifying that job titles shall be indicated in accordance with the National Classification of Positions and Duties (NCPD) in effect at the time the job posting is published.
  3. Regarding §3 of the Amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act:
    • First, to clarify the provision of Article 14(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act and to specify its scope of application, we propose adding the phrase “regardless of the grounds listed in Article 4(1)” after the word “labor.” This clarification will provide clarity regarding the scope of the employer’s new obligations and the relationship between the requirements for protection against discrimination and the other provisions of the Labor Code.
  4. Regarding §4 of the Draft Amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act:
    • As a general remark, we would like to point out that there is a terminological discrepancy between the terms “remuneration” used in the Anti-Discrimination Act and the draft bill, and the terms “pay” and “level of pay” in the directive. We believe it would be appropriate for the provisions concerning the implementation of the directive to use the terminology of the directive itself, so that their scope of application is clear to both workers and employers.
  5. Regarding §5 of the Draft Amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act:
    • The proposed text of Article 14b, paragraph 1, does not comply with the provisions of Directive (EU) 2023/970 – which requires that consultations be held with employee representatives. The proposed text of the Anti-Discrimination Act, however, provides for consultations with labor unions within the enterprise, which in practice limits the participation of employee representatives. We therefore propose that the text be brought into line with the directive, with the additional clarification that the employer is required to invite employee representatives to the consultations.
  6. Regarding §6 of the Draft Amendment to the Protection Against Discrimination Act:
    • The proposed text of the new Article 14v is unclear; we propose, first of all, that each of the provisions specify that this provision applies only in cases of established non-compliance that is not based on objective criteria unrelated to gender. Second, it should be clarified whether the employer’s obligation to consult with employee representatives and/or labor unions within the enterprise is cumulative or alternative; and in the latter case, whether the employer has the freedom to choose with whom to conduct the consultations. In Directive (EU) 2023/970, the obligation applies only to employee representatives; therefore, we again recommend that the text of the Draft Amendment to the Protection Against Discrimination Act strictly comply with the requirements of the directive.
  7. Regarding §8 of the Draft Amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act:
    • We propose that the text of the proposed new paragraph 2 of Article 22 of the Anti-Discrimination Act clarify that the disclosure of information regarding an employee’s pay level should always be voluntary – that is, at the employee’s discretion. Under the current wording, there is a risk that it could be interpreted that the worker or employee is obligated to disclose such information, which is not the intent of the proposed legislation or the directive.
  8. With regard to §12 of the Act Amending the Protection Against Discrimination Act:
    • The amendments and additions to the Labor Code introduced by the Transitional and Final Provisions include, in Article 52, a right for labor unions to receive information on average pay levels – a provision that goes beyond the scope of the directive and creates a risk of disclosing information that is confidential to the employer. We therefore propose that this provision be deleted in its entirety.
  9. Regarding §13 of the Draft Amendment to the Protection Against Discrimination Act:
    • The deadline set for these amendments to take effect is extremely short – given that the public comment period expires on June 18, 2026, it is therefore impossible to conduct a proper debate in the National Assembly.
  10. Support for the position of the National Confederation of Employment in Bulgaria (NCEB) and the Bulgarian Association for People Management (BAPM) regarding the need to better define the obligations of temporary employment agencies (TEAs).
Documents