News

22 November 2022

Ombudsman Diana Kovacheva has contested before the Constitutional Court the provision of Article 10 (16) of the Road Act setting out that if a person has failed to pay their road fees – a vignette or toll charge – the person may not have their vehicle undergo a regular periodic technical examination.

Prof. Kovacheva is certain that the provision is contrary to Article 4 (1) and Article 35 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria because it restricts fundamental rights of the citizens such as free movement in the country and the right to leave it as well as constitutional principles such as the rule of law.

The Ombudsman reasons that the mixed system of charges for different categories of vehicles and fees based on time and based on distance travelled introduced with the Road Act relates solely to traveling via the paid road network, i.e. they are not required outside its scope. 

It is emphasised that, depending on their terms, vignettes can for a year, three months, one month, one week and one weekend and that they are valid from the day indicated as the start date when they are paid for while the contested provision of Article 10 (16) does not set out which one needs to be paid for. 

Prof. Kovacheva also notes that it is possible for an owner of a vehicle never to need a vignette but, in order to comply with the requirements of the law for the technical examination of the vehicle, to be forced to incur costs to purchase a vignette which is not necessary.

“The provision of Article 179 (3) of the Road Traffic Act sets out that a person driving a vehicle along a road included in the scope of the paid road network for which a fee is due who has not paid the fee under Article 10 (1) (1) of the Road Traffic Act is liable to a fine of 300 levs,” the Ombudsman also notes.

She emphasises that the Road Traffic Act envisages the possibility for release from administrative criminal liability if a compensation fee is paid – Article 10 (2).

“It can be seen from the rules for road fees under the Road Act that they are used solely for vehicles traveling within the scope of the paid road network,” Diana Kovacheva notes and adds that the legislator has offered the option to choose the duration of an e-vignette.

“On the other hand, the requirements for periodic technical examinations of vehicles are expressly provided for in the Road Traffic Act and in Ordinance No. I-45 of 24 March 2000 on registrations, reporting for, suspension and re-commissioning, temporary withdrawal, termination and restoration of registrations of vehicles and trailers and on the procedure for providing information about vehicles registered,” the Public Advocate also writes.

Kovacheva also emphasises the fact that registered vehicles are subject to mandatory periodic examinations for technical roadworthiness which certify that a vehicle is safe to be driven and that it meets the mandatory statutory requirements in relation to safety and environmental protection. She draws attention to the fact that the Road Traffic Act lays down penalties for persons driving vehicles which are technically roadworthy.

“An examination for technical roadworthiness is also carried out when vehicles suspended due to technical non-roadworthiness are re-commissioned and when requested by the owner (Article 32 (1) (3) of the Ordinance) and the registration of a vehicle is renewed if there is no valid document that the vehicle has undergone an examination for technical roadworthiness (Article 32 (1) (4) of the Ordinance),” the Ombudsman points out.

Prof. Diana Kovacheva notes that the provision of Article 181 (1) of the Road Traffic Act envisages a penalty for an owner or an official who fails to take a vehicle for a technical examination within the deadline without a good reason to do so.

“In view of the above, the provision of Article 10 (16) of the Road Act creates an interdependence between two obligations of drivers which are independent of each other,” Kovacheva is certain.

According to her, the statutory requirements for payment of road charges is not tied in any way to the time for a technical examination and does not correspond to the purpose and the terms for examining the technical roadworthiness of vehicles. 

“In practice, this text forces the citizens, in order to fulfil an obligation such as the technical examination, to pay unduly a road charge which is necessary only if one drives along the paid road network. The absence of a regular technical examination results in a restriction of their constitutional right to free movement in the territory of the country which also includes the unpaid road network which is inadmissible according to the Constitution,” the Ombudsman states.