OPINION ON THE DRAFT ACT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

TO

THE 52nd NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

CC:
Committee on Economic Policy, Investment and Industry (Lead Committee)

OPINION ON THE DRAFT ACT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

submitted by

Bulgarian Entrepreneurial Association (BESCO), represented by its Executive Director, Mario Milev

DEAR LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,

We hereby present the opinion of the Bulgarian Entrepreneurial Association (BESCO) regarding the Draft Act Amending and Supplementing the Consumer Protection Act, Registration No. 52-602-01-12/09.06.2026.

This opinion specifically concerns the proposed new wording of Section 44, introducing a revised Article 210b of the Consumer Protection Act, according to which:

"For violations of Articles 68j and 68k, natural persons found liable shall be subject to a fine ranging from EUR 1,000 to EUR 25,000, while sole traders and legal entities shall be subject to a pecuniary sanction of up to 4% of their turnover generated in Bulgaria during the preceding financial year. The specific amount of the sanction shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with a methodology adopted by it and published on its website. Where no information is available regarding the turnover generated in Bulgaria during the preceding financial year, sole traders and legal entities shall be subject to a pecuniary sanction ranging from EUR 5,000 to EUR 50,000."

The proposal constitutes a substantial departure from the current legal framework. At present, the maximum pecuniary sanction under Article 210b of the Consumer Protection Act is BGN 70,000. If the proposed amendment is adopted, sanctions imposed on certain traders could reach extremely high levels without being justified by the gravity of the infringement.

A sanction of up to 4% of annual turnover may have a liquidating effect on many businesses, particularly companies with high turnover but low profit margins. The proposed sanctions are contrary to the principle of proportionality, which is a fundamental element of the rule of law and is enshrined in Article 4(1) of the Constitution. Such sanctions exceed the objectives of administrative penalties under the Administrative Violations and Sanctions Act and may undermine the constitutional principle of free economic initiative.

It is particularly important to note that Articles 68j and 68k of the Consumer Protection Act encompass a broad and highly diverse range of unfair commercial practices that differ significantly in nature and severity. These include not only serious and systematic infringements affecting large numbers of consumers—including cross-border cases—but also isolated incidents resulting from technical or organizational errors, limited advertising campaigns, or incorrect assessments of expected demand and available stock.

An additional concern arises from the fact that the sanction is calculated on the basis of the trader's entire turnover generated in Bulgaria, without any mandatory connection to the turnover generated by the specific activity, product, or service affected by the infringement. As a result, a violation of limited scope could theoretically lead to a sanction calculated on turnover derived from completely unrelated business activities of the same undertaking.

Bulgarian legislation has already correctly transposed the requirements of Directive (EU) 2019/2161 through the existing Article 203 of the Consumer Protection Act. That provision appropriately limits the application of the 4% turnover-based sanction to "widespread infringements" identified within the framework of coordinated enforcement actions under Regulation (EU) 2017/2394.

This demonstrates that Bulgaria has already fulfilled its obligations under EU law, and the proposed amendment to Article 210b is therefore not necessary to achieve compliance with European legislation. Extending the application of turnover-based sanctions to virtually all infringements under Articles 68j and 68k is not required by EU law and would place Bulgarian traders in a less favorable and unequal position compared to traders established in other EU Member States.

It should also be noted that the proposal to introduce a sanction of up to 4% of annual turnover was not included in the draft law that was originally published for public consultation.

Such a significant increase in sanctions requires a particularly thorough assessment of its proportionality and its impact on businesses. Given the substantial financial and regulatory consequences of the proposed provision, we believe that this amendment should be subject to a separate and comprehensive impact assessment, as well as meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

In light of the above, we propose that Section 44 of the Draft Act remain unchanged.

Respectfully,

Mario Milev
Executive Director
Bulgarian Entrepreneurial Association (BESCO)