Nedelino municipal council has created what appears to be a remarkable precedent in local administrative practice by approving a procedure to lease municipal land on Napredak Street for one specific vehicle identified by its registration number.
The proposal was rejected by the council’s Budget and Finance Committee, but councillors in the full chamber approved it, relying on the argument that “if we have given it to some people over the years, we should give it to others as well”.
At first glance, the procedure appeared to be a standard one under Bulgaria’s Municipal Property Act. The municipality proposed leasing 25 sq m of public property at a starting monthly rent of €19.17 excluding VAT, for five years, through a publicly announced tender. The participation deposit was set at 10% of the starting tender price.
But the appearance of a procedure designed to manage municipal property in the public interest quickly fell away when the actual subject of the tender was read out.
The land was not simply being offered under equal conditions to anyone who might want to use it. It was explicitly designated for a vehicle with the registration number PV5259EV, serving a specific “Non Stop” shop.
Behind the supposed competitive procedure was an application from Sergey Hartadjiev, manager of “Schnabel” EOOD. The municipality’s chief architect then quickly prepared a layout plan for the site.
In other words, before the tender had even started, the municipality already knew who had requested the land, what it would be used for and even the registration number of the vehicle that was supposed to occupy it.
“If we have given it to others over the years, let’s give it now”
The Budget and Finance Committee did not support mayor Boyan Kehayov’s proposal. After discussion, it voted two in favour, none against and two abstentions, and adopted the following position: “Does not approve the report and the draft decision.”
The proposal nevertheless passed in the full council.
Municipal councillor Vladimir Petrov did not question the public interest, competition, parking availability or the logic of a tender whose subject included a specific registration number. His argument was different: if similar arrangements had been made in the past, there was no reason not to make one again.
“Regarding this item, I do not understand what the committee’s problem is. Apparently they have their reasons, but if over the years we have given [spaces] to Mr Raychev and Mr Sokolov, what is the problem with now giving these two parking spaces to Mr Hartadjiev as well? The man is investing, after all,” Petrov said.
There were no further interventions.
25 sq m for around €20 a month
The financial terms make the case even more striking.
For 25 sq m of municipal land – roughly the size of two parking spaces – the starting monthly rent was €19.17 excluding VAT. That amounts to just over €230 a year before VAT.
In other words, for around €20 a month, a private commercial business would be allowed to occupy municipal land on Napredak Street.
The price was formally only the starting figure. But another question remained: who else would have an incentive to bid if the land was already designated for a specific shop and a vehicle with a specific registration number?
If the municipality genuinely intended to protect the public resource, several basic questions should have been answered.
Is there a shortage of parking spaces in the area? How would allocating this land affect traffic and access? Why was the lease term set at five years? How was the price calculated? And, most importantly, how can a public tender guarantee equal treatment when its own terms contain the registration number of one specific vehicle?
Those questions were not answered during the debate.
When local government crosses the legal line
The Municipal Council ultimately approved the proposal with nine votes in favour, none against and three abstentions.
The decision authorised the mayor to issue an order launching what was described as a “publicly announced tender”. That order is expected to contain the usual administrative details – the property description, starting price, date, time and deposit – but also one strikingly specific condition: the land is to be leased explicitly for the placement of a vehicle with registration number PV5259EV.
That raises fundamental questions about the very nature of the procedure.
A public tender is supposed to allow potential candidates to compete on equal terms. When a condition is so narrowly defined that, in practice, only one party can satisfy it, the competition risks becoming little more than a formality.
In this case, the question of who might win the tender appears to have been largely settled before the mayor’s order had even been issued.
What remains is the more important question: why would a municipal council design a public procedure around the needs of a specific applicant and a specific vehicle – and how does such an arrangement serve the public interest in the management of municipal property?
