Krasimir Pargov: We do not want a change to the law on "Civil Liability", we want the law to be implemented

The topic of the sharp increase in the price of "Civil Liability" insurance for motorcyclists has caused serious tension throughout the country. After a series of protests, supported by dozens of motorcycle clubs and thousands of motorcyclists, the dispute between the motorcycle community, insurance companies and state institutions continues to deepen. Motorcyclists are demanding not a change to the law, but its actual implementation, pointing out that the current Insurance Code allows for the conclusion of policies for different terms. We talk about the topic with Krasimir Pargov, secretary of the GENTLEMEN MC motorcycle club.

- Mr. Pargov, motorcyclists claim that "Civil Liability" insurance is have increased in price by over 80%, while according to the institutions the increase is between 10 and 13%. How do you explain this huge difference in the data?
- The difference comes from the fact that the institutions work with average values, and we work with the real policies that motorcyclists pay. With a huge number of motorcycles, the increase is many times higher than the announced 10-13%. We have hundreds of specific examples from all over the country. That is why 79 motorcycle clubs, groups and independent motorcyclists united at the first protest. If the increase had been so small, we would not be having this conversation now and there would be national discontent.

- Insurers justify the higher prices with increased damages and the fact that many motorcyclists ride without “Civil Liability“. Isn't this a problem within the motorcycling community itself?
- Every owner of a motor vehicle is obliged to comply with the law. But let's be honest, when motorcyclists are denies the possibility of concluding policies according to the actual period of use of the motorcycle and the possibility of installment payments, as is the case with other market participants, this creates problems.
Our request is not to have no insurance. Our request is to comply with the Insurance Code and to provide a real opportunity and choice for contracts of different duration, but not shorter than 30 days, as written in the Insurance Code.
Whoever needs it, can conclude such a contract. For 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9 months, and whoever wants it for a year. This is a matter of choice according to how much they use their motorcycle, and not a matter of privileges.

- You insist on a separate chapter in the Insurance Code dedicated to motorcyclists. What specifically needs to change: seasonal policies, temporary insurance or a different risk assessment model?
- First and foremost Most importantly, we do not want changes to the Insurance Code. There are currently texts in it that allow for the conclusion of insurance contracts for different terms, but this option is not used.
And since this option is not used, we believe that all rights, obligations and options related to the insurance of category L vehicles should be clearly and categorically spelled out in a separate chapter of the Insurance Code. The FSC claims that insurers are not obliged to offer such products, and that this is only an option. Okay, but when this option has not been used for eight years, when statistics, analyses and the market are distorted on this basis, and even worse, when after the complaints filed, state institutions continue to turn a blind eye to this problem, then the question logically arises: shouldn't someone be held responsible for this inaction?

Especially when this inaction has been going on for eight years.

Our main request is extremely simple. In 2017, the legislator created the possibility for category L vehicles to conclude insurance contracts for different periods of time, as long as they are not shorter than 30 days. In practice, this option is not really offered and that is where the distortion of statistics and risk analysis begins.
We insist that this legal option be implemented. Every citizen should have the right to choose for themselves whether to conclude a contract for 30 days, for 3 months, for 6 months or for one year. This is not a new right, but a right that already exists in the current Insurance Code.
We do not want a change to the law on “Civil Liability“, we want the law to be implemented.

- Many people believe that the high number of violations, noise, high speeds and aggressive driving of some motorcyclists logically lead to higher insurance rates. How will you respond to this public criticism?
- Violators must be punished without compromise. But an entire community cannot be punished for the actions of individuals. By the same logic, should all car drivers pay for the most dangerous drivers on the road? Insurance should be based on real risk and real data, not on stereotypes and public suggestions.

- Do you have specific data on how many motorcycle accidents are actually the fault of the motorcyclists and have you used this statistic in conversations with the FSC and insurers?
- From the information officially provided to us under the Access to Public Information Act by the Ministry of Interior, it is clearly seen that in 2024, 422 road accidents with motorcyclists at fault were registered, and according to the currently available data for 2025, they were 423. At the same time, the number of registered motorcycles during this period increased by approximately 20%.
That is why we insist on transparency. We have requested specific analyses, statistics and a methodology by which prices are formed from the FSC, the CPC and the CZP. Instead of convincing arguments, we received general explanations and a refusal to engage in a real expert debate.
If someone claims that such drastic increases are justified, let them show the data, analysis and methodology. Because you can see for yourself that the official data of the Ministry of Interior do not confirm the theses that justify the increase in the price of insurance for motorcyclists.
It is here that the serious discrepancy between the facts and the statements of the institutions that are supposed to exercise control over the insurance sector appears.

- You said that the institutions behave “as lawyers for the insurers“. Do you think that there is a cartel or a coordinated increase in prices between the companies?
- Whether there is a cartel is a question that the competent institutions must answer. The facts are that prices increased simultaneously in all companies, and the possibility of deferred payment in four installments disappeared simultaneously. Whether this is a coincidence or not is the job of the CPC to establish. Our job is to state the facts. Everyone can draw their own conclusions. Our problem is different. Instead of the institutions protecting the public interest, they appear as defenders of the insurance sector. After the way our collective complaints were considered, and after the arrogant attitude during the meetings held with motorcyclists' representatives, our trust in the current management of the FSC has been categorically and completely exhausted. The other institutions preferred to hide behind formal answers and declare that the problem does not concern them. It is this inaction that further increased the dissatisfaction in the motorcycling community. That is why we demanded the resignations of the managements of the FSC, CPC, CZP and API. Regarding the RIA, our request for resignation is related to the actions of the current leadership, which tried to prevent the exercise of our constitutional right to peaceful protest by sending identical letters to organizers in different cities, containing warnings of sanctions and fines, and thus to exert institutional pressure on the organizers and participants in the protests. In a democratic state, institutions should guarantee the right of citizens to freely express their opinion, and not create a feeling of pressure on people who exercise their legal and constitutionally guaranteed rights.

- After the protests in over 20 cities, did you receive an invitation for a real dialogue from the state, the Financial Supervision Commission or the Association of Bulgarian Insurers, or is the tension still increasing?
- After the protests and after the requested resignations, none of the ruling party has sought out the motorcycle community for a real conversation. Only the chairman of the FSC is trying to run after the events and react post facto, but trust in this leadership has already been lost. We have sent an official memorandum to the Prime Minister and are expecting a political solution. Otherwise, the tension will continue to grow.

- If the state does not start negotiations with the bikers and does not take action on the problems raised, what will be your next actions?
- We hope that reason will prevail. At the first protest, 79 motorcycle clubs, groups and independent bikers stood behind our demands. Now this support is even greater and the organizations that joined the initiative are already over 85.

We have given enough time to the institutions to react and we call on the Prime Minister to seriously consider the proposals in our memorandum and make a real political decision.

We want nothing more than for insurers to comply with the Insurance Code and to provide the opportunity to conclude contracts for different terms, not shorter than 30 days, as the law allows, as well as the opportunity for deferred payment of these contracts. I will say it again - we do not want to change the law. We want the law to be implemented as it was adopted by the National Assembly back in 2017.
If the institutions continue to refuse dialogue, it is entirely possible that a nationwide protest will occur in Sofia. This time we will not be talking about 79 clubs, groups and independent bikers, as was the case during the first protest. The organization already includes over 85 clubs and support continues to grow with each passing day.
We hope that the authorities will not allow such an escalation and will hear the voices of the tens of thousands of bikers who are behind these demands. But it must be clear that the patience of the motorcycle community is running out. For months we have been seeking dialogue, presenting arguments, official data and specific legal solutions. Instead of answers we receive silence, formal letters and attempts to sweep the problem under the carpet. From now on, the responsibility lies entirely in the hands of those in power. We have shown that we can unite. If the institutions continue to refuse dialogue and a solution to the problem, they themselves will bear political responsibility for everything that will follow.