Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:683
Date: 2025-09-04
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Bulgaria

Translation C-625/24 – 1 
Case C-625/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
25 September 2024 
Referring court:  
Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
24 September 2024 
Applicant: 
‘CLAIMCOMPASS’ EOOD 
      
ORDER 
No 38478 
Sofia, 24 September 202[4] 
SOFIYSKI RAYONEN SAD (Sofia District Court, Bulgaria), Civil Division, 
28th Chamber […] 
1 The proceedings are pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. 
2 They concern the possibility for Member States to impose restrictions on the 
international jurisdiction provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012, the interpretation of the rules on international jurisdiction for 
proceedings for the issue of an order concerning a claim for enforcement, and the 
concept of ‘a branch, agency or other establishment’, the questions being in part 
identical to those in Case C-430/24, Badzhanova. 
1. PARTIES TO THE DISPUTES: 
3 1.1. Applicant: 
4 The applicant in the case is ‘ClaimCompass’ EOOD, a company incorporated 
under Bulgarian law with its registered office in Sofia, Bulgaria. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-625/24 
 
2  
5 […] 
6 1.2. Debtor: 
7 A debtor (the person who would be the defendant in any subsequent action) is not 
yet a party to the proceedings since the proceedings are unilateral and the debtor is 
only given the opportunity to be a party after an order concerning a claim for 
enforcement has been issued as a decision in the case (see paragraphs 32 and 33 of 
the judgment of 9 September 2022 in Joined Cases C-208/20 and C-256/20, 
Toplofikatsia Sofia and Others). 
8 However, for the purpose of establishing the international elements of the case, it 
should be noted that the application is directed against Wizz Air Hungary Zrt. 
[…], a company with its registered office in Hungary, which has a registered 
branch in Sofia, indicated as the addressee. 
2. FORMS OF ORDER SOUGHT BY THE PARTIES: 
9 The applicant seeks the compensation claimed by a passenger of the future debtor 
from that debtor for the delay of a flight on 8 February 2023 between […] 
(Germany) and (Varna) Bulgaria; it is asserted that the delay in landing took more 
than six hours. The claim has been assigned to the applicant. 
3. NATIONAL LAW: 
10 3.1. Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure; ‘the GPK’) 
(published in Darzhaven vestnik (State Gazette; ‘DV’) No 59 of 20 July 2007, in 
force since 1 January 2008, most recently amended by DV No 39 of 1 May 2024): 
Service on traders and legal persons 
11 ‘Article 50. (1) The place of service for traders and legal persons who are entered 
in the relevant register shall be the last address entered in the register. 
(2) Where the person has left his or her or its address and the new address is not 
entered in the register, all notices shall be added to the case file and deemed to 
have been duly served. […] 
Issue of an order concerning a claim for enforcement 
12 Article 411. (1) […] The application shall be lodged with the rayonen sad (district 
court) within the district where the debtor has his or her or its permanent address 
or registered office; that court shall review ex officio its territorial jurisdiction 
within a period of three days. An application against a consumer must be brought 
before the court of the district in which his or her current address is situated and, 
in the absence of a current address, his or her permanent address. If the court 
CLAIMCOMPASS 
 
3 
considers that the case does not come within its jurisdiction, it shall immediately 
transfer it to the court having jurisdiction. 
(2) […] The court shall examine the application at a preparatory hearing and shall 
issue an order concerning a claim for enforcement within the period stipulated in 
paragraph 1, except where: 
1. […] the claim does not fulfil the requirements of Article 410 and the 
applicant fails to remedy the irregularities within three days of notification; 
2. the claim is unlawful or contrary to accepted principles of morality; 
3. […] the claim is based on an unfair term in a contract concluded with a 
consumer or there are reasonable grounds to suspect that that is the case; 
4. […] the debtor does not have a permanent address or registered office in the 
territory of the Republic of Bulgaria; 
5. […] the debtor does not have his or her or its habitual residence or place of 
business in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria. 
(3) If the application is granted, the court shall issue an order concerning a 
claim for enforcement, a copy of which shall be served on the debtor. 
Appeal 
13 Article 413. (1) The order concerning a claim for enforcement shall not be subject 
to appeal, except as regards costs. 
(2) […] A ruling rejecting an application for an order concerning a claim for 
enforcement in whole or in part may be challenged by the applicant by means of 
an appeal, a copy of which is not required for service.’ 
14 3.2. Targovski zakon (Law on Commerce; ‘the TZ’) (DV No 48 of 19 June 
1991, most recently amended by: DV No 41 of 10 May 2024): 
BRANCH OF A NON-RESIDENT PERSON 
15 ‘Article 17а. […] (1) […] Any branch of a non-resident person, registered with a 
right to engage in commercial activity in accordance with its national law, shall be 
entered in the Commercial Register. 
(2) In addition to the information specified in Article 17(2), the application for 
registration shall contain the following information concerning: 
1. […] the legal form, the trade name or name, and the registered office of the 
non-resident person, and the trade name of the branch, where different from that 
of the non-resident person; 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-625/24 
 
4  
2. the register and the number under which the non-resident person is 
registered, where the applicable law so provides; 
3. the national law applicable to the non-resident person where it is not the law 
of a Member State of the European Union; 
4. the persons representing the non-resident person according to the register in 
which it is registered, where such a register exists, the type of representation, and 
the liquidators and administrators and their powers.’ 
16 3.3 National case-law: 
17 Non-binding case-law of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of 
Cassation) in specific cases is cited. The case-law of the court serving as the court 
of appeal vis-à-vis the referring court in proceedings pertaining to orders 
concerning claims for enforcement – the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) – 
is also cited. […] 
18 3.3.1. Order No 547 of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 22 August 2013 
[…] 
19 ‘The conclusion of the court of appeal that the application fails to meet both the 
requirement of Article 411(2)(3) of GPK and of Article 411(2)(4) of the GPK, 
since the debtor has its registered office abroad, implicitly incorporates a decision 
by the court regarding the absence of a place of business on the part of the non-
resident company, despite its branch registered in Bulgaria, and at the same time 
expresses the court’s view that the fact that one of the two negative conditions of 
Article 411(2)(3) and (4) of the GPK [pre-2019 version (note of the referring 
court)] is satisfied is sufficient to refuse the application for an order concerning a 
claim for enforcement. […] 
20 Under Article 411(2)(3) and (4) of the GPK, a requirement for issuing an order 
concerning a claim for enforcement is that the debtor has a formal or actual 
connection with the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria: in the case of natural 
persons, a permanent address or habitual residence in Bulgaria; in the case of 
legal persons, a registered office or place of business. Only resident persons can 
have a permanent address or registered office in Bulgaria within the meaning of 
Article 411(2)(3) of the GPK. A verification of the habitual residence or place of 
business in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria pursuant to Article 411(2)(4) 
of the GPK is therefore only carried out in the case of non-resident natural or legal 
persons. For the issue of an order concerning a claim for enforcement against the 
debtor (a legal person) on a territorial basis to be allowed, the existence of one of 
the connections to Bulgarian territory referred to in Article 411(2)(3) or (4) of the 
GPK is sufficient. That also follows from the possibility, where either one of the 
two connections (registered office or place of business) exists, for enforcement on 
the basis of the order concerning a claim for enforcement against the legal person 
to be carried out in Bulgarian territory by the relevant authorities. 
CLAIMCOMPASS 
 
5 
21 A branch is a detachment of part of the trader’s activity outside the place where its 
registered office is located. It is part of the business of the trader, who carries on 
commercial activities through it, and the rights and obligations arise in relation to 
the trader since the branch is not a subject of law. By registering a branch pursuant 
to Article 17a of the TZ, non-resident legal persons carry on activities also in the 
territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, which means that they have a place of 
business there within the meaning of Article 411(2)(4) of the GPK. 
22 Under Article 411(2)(3) and (4) of the GPK, if the legal person (the debtor) does 
not have a registered office in Bulgaria but has a place of business there through a 
branch registered in accordance with Article 17a of the TZ, the “registered office” 
of the debtor within the meaning of Article 411 of the GPK, as the criterion for 
determining the territorial jurisdiction for the application, is to be understood as 
the registered office of the branch of the non-resident legal person. The rules 
governing proceedings pertaining to orders concerning claims for enforcement are 
special vis-à-vis the general provisions governing actions in civil matters. 
Therefore, Article 20 of the TZ is not applicable by analogy when determining the 
court having territorial jurisdiction for the application for an order concerning a 
claim for enforcement. 
23 In the light of the foregoing, the present chamber [of the Supreme Court of 
Cassation] considers that the questions raised must be answered as follows: An 
order concerning a claim for enforcement may be issued against a non-resident 
legal person as debtor which has a registered branch in Bulgaria, since under 
Article 411(2)(3) and (4) of the GPK, the “registered office” of the debtor within 
the meaning of Article 411 of the GPK, determining the court having territorial 
jurisdiction, is to be understood as the registered office of the branch of the non-
resident legal person (the debtor).’ 
24 3.3.2. Order No 60275 of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 3 December 2021 
[…] 
25 ‘Under Article 53 of the GPK, notices to foreign nationals residing in Bulgaria are 
to be served at the address provided to the relevant administrative authorities. 
According to the case-law on the application of Article 53 of the GPK, that 
provision presumes the existence of an address provided to a relevant 
administrative authority, such as the Agentsia po vpisvaniata [(Registry Agency)], 
where the BULSTAT register is kept and maintained as a single centralised 
electronic register for the uniform identification of all natural and legal persons 
and other legal entities carrying on relevant activities in the territory of the 
Republic of Bulgaria. Under […] the Zakon za registar BULSTAT [(Law on the 
BULSTAT Register)], the registered addresses of non-resident natural persons 
who own immovable property in Bulgaria are addresses for the domestic 
correspondence with all State institutions, which determines the legal significance 
of the address registered in the BULSTAT Register as registration of an address 
within the meaning of the GPK […].’ 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-625/24 
 
6  
26 3.3.3 Order No 18898 of the Sofia City Court of 25 September 2014 in civil 
appeal case No 5383/2014 […] 
27 ‘Whether or not the negative conditions laid down in Article 411(2)(3) and (4) of 
the GPK are satisfied is examined by the court of its own motion, and if such a 
condition is satisfied, the issue of an order concerning a claim for enforcement is 
to be refused. Under those provisions, an order concerning a claim for 
enforcement is not to be issued if the debtor does not have a registered office or 
place of business in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria. In the present case, 
the applicant has named as debtor the commercial representative of Turkish 
Airlines for the Republic of Bulgaria, “T.H.Y.”, registered in the Commercial 
Register of the Balgarska targovsko-promishlena palata [(Bulgarian Chamber of 
Commerce and Industry)]. Under Article 24(1) of the Zakon za nasarchavane na 
investitsiite [(Law on the Promotion of Investment)], non-resident persons entitled 
to carry on commercial activities under their national legislation may set up 
representative offices in Bulgaria, which must be registered with the Bulgarian 
Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and under Article 24(2), those 
representative offices are not legal persons and cannot carry on economic 
activity. The economic activity is carried on by the trader him or herself and not 
by the representative office. The negative conditions set out in Article 411(2)(3) 
and (4) of the GPK with regard to the issue of an order concerning a claim for 
enforcement are satisfied, and therefore the appeal is unfounded and the decision 
under appeal must be upheld.’ 
28 The chambers of the Sofia District Court sometimes follow the latter order; at 
other times, they issue orders concerning a claim for enforcement against non-
resident persons whose only connection with the territory of the Republic of 
Bulgaria is a representative office registered with the Bulgarian Chamber of 
Commerce and Industry. 
4. FACTS: 
29 The applicant submits that its predecessor in title bought a ticket from the debtor; 
its claim that the court has jurisdiction is based on the fact that the debtor’s 
Bulgarian branch has its registered office in Sofia (which is also apparent from the 
Commercial Register). 
30 The ticket submitted in the proceedings originates from a website of the carrier 
and was issued in English. It bears the booking code […] and covers flights from 
[…] airport (Germany) to Varna (Bulgaria) airport on 8 February 2023 at 18.30. 
31 It is claimed that the flight was delayed and landed after midnight on 9 February 
2023. 
32 5. CONNECTION WITH EUROPEAN LAW AND NEED FOR 
INTERPRETATION:  
CLAIMCOMPASS 
 
7 
33 5.1. First question – Restrictions of jurisdiction: 
34 The need for an interpretation arises from the necessity to clarify the limits within 
which national legislatures may restrict the jurisdiction of their courts in respect of 
certain proceedings where those proceedings come within the material scope of 
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. It is necessary to clarify the extent to which the 
regulation creates uniform rules for the complete harmonisation of the rules on 
jurisdiction or merely establishes a framework for the legislatures of the 
individual Member States. 
35 Bulgarian law contains special rules on jurisdiction in respect of national 
proceedings for issuing orders concerning claims for enforcement, excluding the 
issue of such orders in cases where the debtor does not have a registered 
permanent address or registered office or habitual residence or registered place of 
business in Bulgaria. The rules on jurisdiction in those special proceedings 
therefore exclude the alternative international jurisdictions provided for in 
Article 7, for example, even though the regulation expressly authorises them. 
36 In the present case, national law determines territorial jurisdiction on the basis of 
the registered office of the trader’s branch, while Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 
lays down the requirement that such jurisdiction (both international and territorial 
within a State) must be linked to the manner in which a contract has been 
concluded or is being performed (Article 7(5) of the regulation), given that the 
alternative jurisdiction of either the place of take-off or the place of landing of the 
flight, as referred to by the Court (judgment of 9 July 2009, Rehder, C-204/08, 
EU:C:2009:439, paragraph 43) is also inapplicable since the flight of the 
claimant’s predecessor in title neither took off nor landed in Sofia (Bulgaria). 
37 The question therefore also arises as to whether such alternative territorial 
jurisdiction, based on the registered office of the branch, is permissible in the light 
of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court of 
Justice’) (there is no need to cite individual judgments as this is an established 
principle), according to which the rules on jurisdiction must be uniform and 
highly predictable. In that respect, Article 5(1) of the regulation appears to require 
that national courts have jurisdiction over disputes provided for in the relevant 
sections of the regulation, irrespective of their national law. Such a view could 
possibly also be inferred from the positions adopted by the Court of Justice in 
paragraphs 31 to 34 of the judgment of 25 February 2021 in Case C-804/19, 
Markt24, and in paragraph 27 of the order of 13 December 2023 in Case 
C-319/23, Avdzhilov, that is to say, that the rules on international jurisdiction laid 
down in Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 are to be applied uniformly, regardless of 
considerations relating to the protection of potentially disadvantaged parties. 
38 On the other hand, proceedings pertaining to orders concerning claims for 
enforcement, as special unilateral proceedings, always provide for specific 
restrictions and conditions under which recourse can be had to that simplified 
method of legal protection. In most national legal systems, for example, that is 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-625/24 
 
8  
only possible in respect of monetary claims or a specific, limited range of other 
rights. If it is possible to restrict the scope of those proceedings according to the 
subject matter (ratione materiae), Member States should also be entitled to restrict 
the scope of the proceedings according to the place (ratione loci). 
39 In the light of those two possible lines of reasoning, the Court of Justice must 
clarify whether the international jurisdiction for civil proceedings provided for in 
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 merely constitutes a maximum framework of 
jurisdiction for the national courts, established by EU law, or whether, on the 
contrary, it establishes a subjective right of applicants to bring proceedings against 
defendants to whom any of the situations covered by that regulation applies (that 
is to say, there is full harmonisation). The question therefore arises as to whether 
the provisions of the regulation, in particular Article 7(1) and (5) applicable to the 
facts of the main proceedings, considered in the light of the general framework of 
jurisdiction laid down in Article 5(1) of the regulation, allow provisions of 
national law such as Article 411(2)(4) and (5) of the GPK, which provide for 
other, more limited grounds of jurisdiction. 
40 5.2. Second and third questions – Interpretation of the concept of ‘branch, 
agency and establishment’ and its relevance to the interpretation of national 
law: 
41 Next, irrespective of the answer to the first question, in view of the international 
nature of the case, the adoption of EU acts in the area of the international 
jurisdiction of the courts, and the contradictory case-law of the Bulgarian courts in 
relation to the concept of ‘place of business’, the referring court must establish the 
limits within which the concept of ‘branch, agency or establishment’ under 
Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 can be of use in interpreting the 
concept of ‘place of business’ of a non-resident legal person under 
Article 411(2)(5) of the GPK. To that end, it is necessary to answer [the question] 
whether the concept of ‘branch, agency or establishment’ is an autonomous 
concept of EU law, which always also determines the substance of the terms used 
in national law, or whether it is linked to the definition of those entities in national 
law and only certain general characteristics governed by EU law are taken into 
account. 
42 The concept of ‘branch, agency or establishment’ in Article 7(5) of the regulation 
has not often been interpreted by the Court of Justice. In paragraph 33 of the 
judgment of 11 April 2019 in Case C-464/18, Ryanair DAC, three criteria are 
mentioned for the possibility of determining international jurisdiction on the basis 
of the place of the branch. The first two criteria are the organisational autonomy 
and the material security of the branch, and the third criterion relates to whether 
the legal relationship arises in connection with operations of the branch, which 
must be carried out in the Member State in which it is situated. It appears from 
those criteria that the Court of Justice, in accordance with the interpretation in 
paragraph 11 of its judgment of 6 October 1976 in Case 12/76, Tessilii, considers 
that the concept of ‘branch, agency or establishment’ has an autonomous meaning 
CLAIMCOMPASS 
 
9 
in the context of EU law and must be interpreted in the same way in the legal 
systems of all Member States. 
43 If that is the case, and in so far as international jurisdiction in civil matters is 
concerned – an area harmonised by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – it should be 
assumed that terms used in a similar sense must have the same meaning in the 
national legal systems. That makes problematic the view of the Bulgarian 
Supreme Court of Cassation in its order of December 2021, cited in paragraphs 19 
to 23 above, excluding a connection between the existence of a registered address 
and the activity of the place of business, which, according to the judgment in Case 
C-464/18, Ryanair DAC, cited in the previous paragraph, must be connected with 
the legal relationship forming the subject matter of the dispute in order to 
constitute a ground of jurisdiction. It is therefore necessary for the referring court 
to ascertain whether that concept has a uniform meaning in the European Union 
and must be applied as having that meaning when interpreting national legislation 
providing for grounds of jurisdiction other than those laid down by EU law (if the 
answer to the first question is that that is possible). 
44 The latter should be possible since the interpretation of national law must not 
undermine the effectiveness of EU law. Since, in the present case, the rules on 
international jurisdiction are intended to ensure the protection of the defendant, 
but also the predictability of the court having jurisdiction, the adoption of national 
rules on jurisdiction which diverge significantly from those of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012 may limit the protection which Article 5 of the regulation is 
intended to ensure. The question whether, in the present case, the national concept 
of ‘place of business’ must necessarily be interpreted in accordance with the 
interpretation of that concept by the Court of Justice, having regard to the 
obligations arising from the judgment of 13 November 1990 in Case C-106/89, 
Marleasing, must also be answered expressly. 
45 The main issue in the present case is essentially whether jurisdiction can be 
derived from the condition laid down in national case-law, namely the existence 
of a separate organisation and its formal registration, or whether it must 
necessarily be established on the basis of a factual connection between the 
activities of the separate organisational unit (branch, representative office) and the 
subject matter of the proceedings. In that sense, the interpretation of the Court of 
Justice appears to be much more restrictive. 
46 Does the existence of a ‘branch, agency or establishment’ also determine the 
territorial jurisdiction of the courts within a Member State? 
47 In paragraph 30 of its judgment of 3 May 2007 in Case C-386/05, the Court of 
Justice found that, where the rules on international jurisdiction in civil matters 
provide for the jurisdiction of the court of the place (and not the State) where a 
particular event occurs, those rules determine not only the international 
jurisdiction of the courts as between different States but also the territorial 
jurisdiction vis-à-vis other courts of the same State. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-625/24 
 
10  
48 Thus far, there has been no ruling on whether that general rule also applies to 
proceedings brought at ‘the place where the branch is situated’ and therefore that 
question must also be raised. 
49 How does the court examine [its] jurisdiction of its own motion in unilateral 
proceedings? 
50 Lastly, in the present case the question also arises as to how the interests of the 
debtor (the defendant), who is not currently a party to the proceedings, can be 
protected with regard to the jurisdiction of the court seised. Under the rule set out 
in Article 28(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, national courts are to decide 
on their jurisdiction in proceedings to which the regulation applies only after 
having given the opposing party the opportunity to challenge jurisdiction. The 
only exceptions to that general rule are cases of exclusive jurisdiction under 
Article 24 of the regulation. 
51 At the same time, however, in paragraphs 32 and 33 of its judgment of 
9 September 2021 in Cases C-208/20 and C-256/20, Toplofikatsia Sofia, the Court 
of Justice held that Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 does not apply to the rules in 
respect of judicial decisions becoming final after their adoption and to the 
possibility of cancelling them or setting them aside. Against that background, the 
court has no possibility of examining any potential challenge by a debtor claiming 
that the court lacks international jurisdiction after the order concerning a claim for 
enforcement has been issued, and under national law it has no possibility of 
inviting the debtor to submit observations before it is issued. In that situation, the 
question arises as to whether the rule in Article 28(1) of that regulation is 
applicable at all in unilateral proceedings such as those for the issue of an order 
concerning a claim for enforcement or whether the court must decide on its 
jurisdiction in such cases without waiting for the defendant to submit 
observations. 
52 In the light of the foregoing, the referring Chamber considers that it must stay the 
proceedings in case and refer questions on the interpretation of EU law to the 
Court of Justice pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. 
53 For those reasons, the 28th Chamber of Sofia District Court, pursuant to the first 
paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, 
ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 
54 THE PROCEEDINGS IN […] THE CASE […] ARE STAYED until the Court 
of Justice of the European Union has ruled on the questions set out below, 
55 The following questions on the interpretation of EU law are REFERRED to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union: 
56 1. Must Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on 
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and 
CLAIMCOMPASS 
 
11 
commercial matters (recast) (‘Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012’), in conjunction 
with Article 5(1) thereof, be interpreted as  
laying down mandatory rules on the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member 
States within the European Union, which cannot be excluded [by] provisions 
of national law concerning specific types of simplified proceedings, in 
respect of which special conditions governing the jurisdiction of the national 
courts are also laid down? 
57 2. Irrespective of the answer to the first question, must Article 7(5) of Regulation 
(EU) No 1215/2012, interpreted in accordance with the judgment of 11 April 2019 
in Case C-464/18, Ryanair DAC, be interpreted as meaning that 
the concept of ‘branch, agency or other establishment’ is an autonomous 
concept of EU law and, if so, what is its meaning in relation to the 
requirement regarding the conclusion of a contract within the scope of the 
establishment’s operation? 
58 3. If the answer to the first question is in the negative – that is to say, that those 
rules are not mandatory – and the answer to the first part of the second question is 
in the affirmative, must Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, 
interpreted in accordance with the judgment of 13 November 1990 in Case 
C-106/89, Marleasing, be interpreted as meaning that 
provisions of national law which provide for jurisdiction on the basis of the 
existence of a ‘place of business’ in a particular Member State must be 
interpreted, in relation to that term, in accordance with the interpretation of 
the concept of ‘branch, agency or establishment’ given by the Court of 
Justice of the European Union? 
59 4. Must Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as 
governing, for the purpose of determining jurisdiction for actions lodged 
against a branch, agency or establishment, not only the allocation of 
jurisdiction as between the Member States of the European Union, but also 
the allocation of territorial jurisdiction as between the courts of each 
individual State? 
60 5. Must Article 28(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, interpreted in accordance 
with the guidance provided in the judgment of 9 September 2021 in Cases 
C-208/20 and C-256/20, Toplofikatsia Sofia, be interpreted as 
not allowing the court, in unilateral national proceedings, such as those for 
an order concerning a claim for enforcement, in which the defendant 
becomes a party to the proceedings after the judicial decision has been 
issued, to decide on its jurisdiction only following an attempt to serve a 
judicial decision on the defendant? 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-625/24 
 
12  
[…]