# C_2020027EN.01002401.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 November 2019 — ‘DSK Bank’ EAD and ‘FrontEx International’

(Case C-807/19)

(2020/C 27/30)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants in the order for payment procedures:‘DSK Bank’ EAD and ‘FrontEx International’ EAD

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the fact that a national court has a significantly heavier workload than the other courts of the same instance and the judges of that court are therefore prevented from examining the documents submitted to them on the basis of which provisional enforceability is to be ordered or may be ordered and at the same time from delivering their decisions within a reasonable period of time constitute, as such, an infringement of the EU law on consumer protection or of other fundamental rights? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the fact that a national court has a significantly heavier workload than the other courts of the same instance and the judges of that court are therefore prevented from examining the documents submitted to them on the basis of which provisional enforceability is to be ordered or may be ordered and at the same time from delivering their decisions within a reasonable period of time constitute, as such, an infringement of the EU law on consumer protection or of other fundamental rights?

| 2. | Must the national court refuse to issue decisions, which may result in enforcement if the consumer does not object to them, if it has a serious suspicion that the application is based on an unfair term in a consumer contract, without the case file containing any compelling evidence of that? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the national court refuse to issue decisions, which may result in enforcement if the consumer does not object to them, if it has a serious suspicion that the application is based on an unfair term in a consumer contract, without the case file containing any compelling evidence of that?

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the negative, is it permissible for the national court, if it has such a suspicion, to request additional evidence from the trading party to the contract, even though, under national law, it does not have such power in the procedure in which a potentially enforceable decision is given, so long as the debtor does not raise an objection? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the negative, is it permissible for the national court, if it has such a suspicion, to request additional evidence from the trading party to the contract, even though, under national law, it does not have such power in the procedure in which a potentially enforceable decision is given, so long as the debtor does not raise an objection?

| 4. | Are the requirements for the establishment of certain circumstances by the national court of its own motion, as introduced by EU law in connection with directives harmonising consumer law, also applicable in cases where the national legislature offers consumers additional protection (more rights) via a national law transposing a provision of a directive which allows such enhanced protection to be granted? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are the requirements for the establishment of certain circumstances by the national court of its own motion, as introduced by EU law in connection with directives harmonising consumer law, also applicable in cases where the national legislature offers consumers additional protection (more rights) via a national law transposing a provision of a directive which allows such enhanced protection to be granted?

---