OPINION ON THE DRAFT REGULATION ON THE TRANSPARENCY REGISTER

TO
THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
For the attention of: Mr Nikolay Naydenov, Minister of Justice

OPINION ON THE DRAFT REGULATION ON THE TRANSPARENCY REGISTER

from

The "BULGARIAN ENTREPRENEURIAL ASSOCIATION" (BESCO), represented by its Executive Director Alexander Nutsov

DEAR MR NAYDENOV,
DEAR SIRS AND MADAMS,

We hereby submit the opinion of the "Bulgarian Entrepreneurial Association" (BESCO) on the Draft Regulation on the Transparency Register (the "Draft"), which has been published for public consultation under Consultation No. 12437-K.

We support the adoption of a Regulation on the Transparency Register, insofar as the establishment and operation of such a register is expressly provided for in the Law on Transparency in Interest Representation (the "Law"). Moreover, the Law not only provides for the adoption of secondary legislation but also sets a specific deadline for it: pursuant to Section 3 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Law, the Regulation must be issued within three months of the Law's entry into force. In this sense, the adoption of the Regulation is a necessary condition for the introduction and operation of the Transparency Register and the meetings calendar.

We consider that the Draft Regulation should be refined in certain of its parts, so as not to create disproportionate burdens on interest representatives and not to extend the requirements laid down in the Law.

1. Refinement of the particulars subject to entry in the Transparency Register under Article 5 of the Draft

1.1. On Article 5(3)(3) of the Draft

Article 5(3)(3) of the Draft provides that, for legal entities, the "names of those representing the organisation at the time of registration" are to be entered. This wording does not correspond to the Law, which, in Article 14(2)(3), provides for the entry of the names of the legal representatives or other persons authorised to represent the organisation. The problem is not merely editorial. The Law allows for an alternative — the entry of the legal representatives or of other persons who are authorised to represent the organisation. In this sense, the statutory framework does not necessarily require the entry of all legal representatives of the legal entity where a specific person has been authorised for the purposes of interest representation. The wording proposed in the Draft, "those representing the organisation at the time of registration", creates an obligation to list all persons who represent the organisation, regardless of whether they actually carry out interest representation, participate in the relevant activity, or have authorised another person to carry out the registration. This would lead to an unjustified expansion of the scope of the data subject to entry in the Transparency Register. In order to avoid inconsistent application, we propose that Article 5(3)(3) of the Draft reproduce the statutory provision precisely.

1.2. On Article 5(2)(4) and Article 5(3)(5) of the Draft

Article 5(2)(4) and Article 5(3)(5) of the Draft provide for the entry of a "field of activity/area of interest", whereby, pursuant to Article 5(4), the fields of activity are determined on the basis of the nomenclature of policy areas used in the Public Consultations Portal, while the area of interest is determined by indicating the authority under Article 5 of the Law in whose activity the representative has an interest.

We consider that this approach should be refined, since the field of activity and the area of interest cannot always be precisely determined solely through a predefined nomenclature or by indicating a specific authority. It is possible for the activity of an interest representative to cover more than one area or to be relevant to the activity of more than one public authority. In such cases, overly restrictive structuring of the information may lead to an incomplete or inaccurate reflection of the actual scope of the activity.

We therefore propose that provision be made for indicating more than one field of activity and area of interest, as well as for a free-text description of the fields of activity/areas of interest, where the predefined parameters do not allow for a sufficiently accurate reflection of the relevant activity/interest.

2. On the declaration template under Article 5(7) of the Draft

The declaration template under Article 5(7) should be refined. On the one hand, for natural persons it provides for the completion of an excessive volume of personal data, including permanent address, current address, identity card number, date of issue, and the authority that issued the identity document. This data does not follow from the Law as particulars subject to entry in the Register and is not necessary to achieve the objectives of transparency. Its collection does not comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality in the collection of personal data.

On the other hand, the template is not adapted to cases where the interest representative is a legal entity. Although the declaration allows for signature by a legal representative of a legal entity, it lacks fields for the identification of the legal entity itself on whose behalf the information is submitted — name, UIC (Unified Identification Code)/BULSTAT, registered seat, and management address. Thus, the declaration primarily identifies the natural person signing it, but not the legal entity that is the interest representative.

We therefore propose that the fields for permanent address, current address, identity card number, date of issue, and issuing authority be removed from the declaration, and that the template be supplemented with a separate section for a legal entity as interest representative, containing fields for completing the name, UIC/BULSTAT or another number for foreign persons, registered seat, and management address.

3. On Article 10(3) of the Draft

Article 10(3) of the Draft provides that changes to the meetings calendar may be made within three days of receipt of the unique number of the individual meeting. We consider this deadline to be too short and to fail to account for the possibility that errors may be identified at a later stage, including by the interest representative. Calendars may contain inaccuracies regarding the names of participants, the organisation, the topic of the meeting, the link to a specific draft act, or the sequence of the meeting. Such errors may have reputational consequences for interest representatives and create a false public impression of their activity. It is particularly important to provide for the right of the interest representative to request the correction of a factual error in the meetings calendar.

4. On the notification provided for in Article 11(2) of the Draft

We support the mechanism provided for in Article 11 of the Draft for linking published draft acts with meetings held with interest representatives. Such functionality is important for achieving genuine traceability in the process of drafting normative and other acts and is consistent with the objective of building a clear public "footprint" of the meetings held and external participation in the process.

We consider, however, that the provision could be supplemented in Article 11(2) as regards automatic notification. Under the current wording, a message about the published draft is sent only to interest representatives who have already participated in meetings on the topic. In order to ensure broader and more equal access to the process, we propose that notification also be sent to all registered interest representatives who have declared the relevant field of activity or area of interest. This would enhance transparency and support broader participation in public consultations.

We hope that the proposals made will be taken into account in the adoption of the Regulation.

Yours sincerely,
Alexander Nutsov
Executive Director