Why Bulgaria Is Considering Banning Company and NGO Names That Mimic State Institutions
A detailed explainer on the proposal sparked by the “Petrohan” case
In early 2026, a political movement in Bulgaria ignited discussion about tightening the country’s rules on the names that companies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can use when they register legally. The proposal is to prohibit names that appear to imitate or suggest affiliation with state institutions — for example, names that include words like “National Agency” or “State Committee” in contexts that could mislead the public.
This may sound technical or bureaucratic, but the debate touches on fundamental questions about public trust, legal clarity, societal harm, and how the state regulates civic life. The push for reform came in the aftermath of what has been widely reported as the “Petrohan” case, an incident involving a seemingly registered body with a name that resembled a government institution linked in public discourse to that tragedy.
This explainer unpacks what the issue is, why it has emerged now, how the current system works, who is affected, and what the possible implications are for Bulgaria’s legal and civic landscape.
What the Issue Is: Misleading Names and Public Confusion
At the centre of this debate is a legal loophole in Bulgarian legislation that currently allows companies and NGOs to register names that include terms normally associated with official government bodies — like “national”, “state” or words such as “agency” or “commission”. There is no current blanket ban on these terms when used by private legal entities.
Critics argue that this permits entities to adopt names that sound official or government-like, even when they have no legal authority or oversight powers, potentially confusing citizens, polluting public discourse, or undermining trust in actual institutions.
For example, a private NGO named “National Agency for Protected Territories” might be perceived by a layperson as an official regulator or enforcement body, when in fact it may simply be a private association with no legal mandate.
The current proposal seeks to change the Law on Non-Profit Legal Entities and the Commercial Law to explicitly ban such names that resemble or imitate the titles of state administrations, ministries, agencies, or other state organs.
Why It Exists: A Gap in the Legal Framework
At present, companies and NGOs in Bulgaria register with authorities based on formal criteria such as legal structure, purpose, and compliance with registration rules. But there is no specific rule that bars them from choosing names that could be misinterpreted as belonging to government bodies.
This situation exists because the regulatory focus in registration has historically been on preventing fraud (e.g., names that are identical to existing entities) and ensuring administrative requirements are met — rather than policing whether a name implicitly claims public authority.
In legal terms, a name can be descriptive without being false, and courts or registries have often treated it that way unless there is clear evidence of intentional wrongdoing.
However, civil society lawyers and lawmakers now argue that this approach underestimates the real-world effects of names that suggest public authority — especially when used in political or controversial contexts.
The Catalyst: The “Petrohan” Case
The political push to tighten these rules was greatly accelerated by what is widely known in Bulgarian public discourse as the “Petrohan” case — an event that garnered mass attention in February 2026.
The details of the case are complex and involve a tragic incident with multiple fatalities, including a 15-year-old, found near a site associated in media coverage with an organisation that used the term “national agency” in its name. Official and family accounts differ on the circumstances surrounding the deaths. Authorities have hinted at potential links to broader activity by the organisation, while relatives have vehemently denied suggested theories.
This episode sparked questions from journalists and lawmakers about how such an organisation was allowed to register in the first place, especially with a name suggestive of official status. Opponents described this as part of a pattern where entities can operate with confusing or potentially misleading branding without adequate oversight.
How the Proposed Rule Change Would Work
The legislative initiative — mainly put forward by the political movement “Да, България” (“Yes, Bulgaria”) within the broader “Продължаваме промяната – Демократична България” coalition — includes amendments to two key laws:
1. Law on Non-Profit Legal Entities
- Would prohibit NGO names that contain terms traditionally associated with state institutions in a way that could misrepresent their role or authority.
- Would require clearer criteria for what counts as an official sounding term.
2. Commercial Law
- Similarly, commercial companies would be barred from names that imitate or resemble titles of governmental bodies, agencies, or public administrations.
- This could affect how businesses choose to brand professional associations, consultancies, or advocacy organisations.
The goal is to clarify that no private organisation should appear to be a surrogate for state power simply through its name.
Who Is Affected — And How
1. NGOs and Civil Society Organisations
Many NGOs use terms like “national”, “agency”, or “institute” in their names. Some of these names are innocuous and intended to convey broader reach or mission (e.g., National Institute for Urban Sustainability). Others are more problematic, either accidentally or intentionally creating associations with public enforcement.
Under the proposed reform, organisations currently using names that could be interpreted as official might have to:
- Change their registered names
- Rebrand communication and documentation
- Explain their mission more clearly to avoid misinterpretation
This could be particularly impactful for NGOs involved in policy advocacy, environmental protection, education, or public services.
2. Businesses and Commercial Entities
Private companies that have used names resembling state bodies may need to adjust their branding and legal documentation. For example:
| Type of Entity | Current Example Name | Potential Concern |
|---|---|---|
| Consulting firm | National Regulatory Advisors Ltd | Could be confused with a state regulator |
| Security company | State Security Group | Suggests official security authority |
| Environmental NGO | Bulgarian National Forest Agency | Implies a governmental forestry role |
Note: The above table is illustrative, not tied to specific cases.
3. The General Public
Citizens may be confused by names that sound official, leading to:
- Misunderstanding of an organisation’s authority
- Trust placed in private entities that lack legal enforcement power
- Mistrust when outcomes differ from expectations tied to official functions
Why This Matters for Society
The debate is not purely technical — it touches on trust in public institutions and clarity of civil information.
1. Protecting Public Trust
If people cannot easily distinguish between state authority and private entities, they may:
- Follow instructions from entities that don’t have legal power
- Undermine confidence in state institutions when private actors fail to deliver
- Be vulnerable to manipulation or misinformation
Clear naming standards help maintain a transparent civic environment where authority is identifiable and accountable.
2. Reducing Miscommunication and Misrepresentation
In sectors like environmental protection, health, or education, where NGOs and private groups play active roles, the risk of misunderstanding can have practical consequences — from regulatory expectations to public safety.
3. Legal Clarity for Enforcement
Regulators themselves have struggled to define clear criteria for rejecting misleading names — courts often allow descriptive terms unless there is provable bad faith. This proposal aims to give regulators firmer legal ground.
Historical and Legal Context
Legal systems worldwide often have rules about misrepresentation and deceptive business practices — including limits on names that could mislead the public. However, such rules vary in scope.
Bulgaria’s current framework focuses more on preventing duplication and protecting trademark rights, rather than policing semantic similarity to official government nomenclature.
Historically, the state’s registration responsibilities were managed by courts; later, that function moved to the Registry Agency, which administers commercial and NGO registrations. The fact that many organisations with quasi-official names entered the registry predates current procedural reforms, meaning the issue has been accumulating over time.
Challenges and Criticisms
Not everyone supports the proposed changes, and potential concerns include:
1. Freedom of Expression and Association
Some legal experts fear that strict naming rules could chill civil society or limit legitimate organisational identity.
2. Enforcement Practicality
Deciding what sounds official versus what is merely descriptive can be subjective. Regulators would need clear guidelines, and disputes may end up in court.
3. Administrative Burden
Existing organisations may need time and resources to rebrand, especially smaller NGOs without legal teams.
What May Happen Next
The draft amendments must now be debated and voted on in Bulgaria’s National Assembly. Depending on parliamentary support, possible future outcomes include:
- Passage of the reform, creating clearer prohibitions
- Rejection or delay, maintaining the status quo
- Modification, with compromise wording that narrows or clarifies the scope
If adopted, the reform could spur similar debates in other European countries about naming rights and public trust.
Towards Solutions: Balancing Clarity and Openness
Potential solutions to balance regulatory clarity with civil liberties might include:
- Clear legal definitions of what constitutes misleading naming
- Phased implementation, giving organisations time to adapt
- Guidance and support for NGOs during rebranding
- Public education, helping citizens distinguish legal authority from private initiatives
Conclusion
The debate over banning names that imitate state institutions in Bulgaria is more than a technical legal reform. It reflects broader societal currents: concerns about trust in institutions, transparency in civic life, and the relationship between citizens, civil society, and the state.
While the “Petrohan” case provided a catalyst, the underlying issue touches on democratic norms and the effectiveness of legal frameworks in protecting clarity and public interest. Whether Bulgaria enacts the proposed changes remains to be seen, but the conversation itself shows the evolving intersection of law, society, and public trust in the digital age.