News

18 November 2025

Ombudsman Velislava Delcheva approached the Regional Governor of the City of Sofia Stefan Arsov, the Chair of the Sofia City Council Tsvetomir Petrov and the Mayor of Sofia Vasil Terziev by reason of the dozens of complaints from local people to the Ombudsman Institution to express serious concerns about the enlargement of the “blue” and “green” parking zones and the increased parking tariffs.

The reason for this is the amendments and supplements to the Regulation on the Organization of Traffic within the Municipality of Sofia (Report СОА25-ВК66-8005/23.09.2025), adopted by the meeting of the Sofia City Council on 13 November 2025.

“Drawing on the Ombudsman Act, I insist that you exercise your powers in line with the competences as vested in you under the Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act, in particular that you send back the Sofia City Council Decision or propose that it be withdrawn, respectively that you exercise control on its conformity with the law,” Velislava Delcheva wrote.

She explained her reaction with the absence of a broad public discussion as this did not allow for sufficient dialog with the community on an issue that is of such importance for the residents of Sofia.

The Ombudsman stressed that following an analysis, significant problems were identified in the drafting and approval procedure of the regulation. There exists a serious shortage of factual and legal grounds to justify the enlargement of paid parking zones and the tariff increases. The drafting process saw slips that conflict with the principles of transparency, input and reasonableness of regulations.

“The enlargement of a blue zone and a green zone for parking lots in Sofia and the increase of tariffs are a change that will have tangible consequences for citizens, hence the need to conduct a broader public discussion borough by borough so as to allow for the expression, in a large measure, of different opinions and views. This has been the modus operandi of the Municipality of Sofia until now,” the Ombudsman wrote.

Though the draft to amend the regulation was subjected to public consultations in writing from 24 September to 23 October 2025, the legal framework of the Municipality of Sofia explicitly provides for a possibility to have open public discussions when significant changes are forthcoming that will impact a large number of people.

The Ombudsman noted that similar discussions were held in different boroughs of the capital city in 2020–2022 on amendments of a similar nature, however, as regards the current amendments, no arguments were given as to why such a formula was not applied.

“As evident from the summary report on the consultations in writing submitted in the said period, out of a total of 107 opinions from citizens, only 20 were fully or partially in support of the draft regulation submitted to discussion which number makes up below 20% of all participating citizens,” Velislava Delcheva emphasized.

She gave attention to the fact that on 13 September 2025 an opinion poll was uploaded to show what citizens and businesses think about parking in the capital city. The poll could be visited in the course of ten days only and cannot be downloaded at the moment. As the Mayor of Sofia claimed, the poll outcome pushed the start of the draft of the regulation.

“Thereby I believe that the poll which is impossible to be downloaded, is not all-inclusive and does not give a real idea of the opinion of the Sofia residents about this issue,” Velislava Delcheva stated firmly.

In her opinion, the draft does not contain detailed data about the reasons and the need to enlarge the paid parking zones nor does it give an economic rationale for the new tariffs.

In addition, key data are not presented: What were the revenues from parking collected in 2024 and 2025? Were these revenues sufficient to cover the costs? How will be the revenues spent after the tariff increase?

The different deadlines for the enforcement of the rules are not explicated and this creates preconditions for inequality between the boroughs.

The Ombudsman drew attention to the fact that the draft does not sufficiently consider the possible alternative options as specified in the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan: the construction of buffer, peripheral, underground and multilevel car parks that would relieve the central parts of the city.

One of the weaknesses, among other, is the absence of an analysis of the social and health consequences of the shorter parking time around hospitals, schools, kindergartens and other public buildings that are daily visited by vulnerable groups. The intended restrictions such as a maximum stay of two hours and the inexistence of an option of a short stay of 15 to 30 minutes around schools may become an obstacle to these services. Therefore, the Ombudsman recommended that a more flexible parking schedule should be considered for the areas around hospitals and schools which schedule should take into account their social function and the needs of citizens.