Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:867
Date: 2025-11-10
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-821/24 – 1 
Case C-821/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
28 November 2024 
Referring court: 
Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 November 2024 
Applicant in the main proceedings: 
‘A1 Bulgaria’ EAD 
Debtor in the main proceedings: 
V.N.A. 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Proceedings for an order for payment under Article 410 of the Grazhdanski 
protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure; ‘the GPK’) brought by the 
applicant ‘A1 Bulgaria’ EAD, a mobile telephone operator registered under 
Bulgarian law, on 27 September 2024, in which it applied to the Sofiyski rayonen 
sad (Sofia District Court), the referring court, for an order for payment in the 
amount of 4 130.76 leva (BGN), which it claims from the debtor V.N.A. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Request pursuant to Article 267 TFEU for interpretation of Articles 2(a) and 4 of 
Directive 93/13 and point 1(e) and (j) of the annex thereto entitled ‘Terms referred 
to in Article 3(3)’ and of Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 2020/1828, in conjunction 
with Article 7(4)(a) thereof 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-821/24 
 
2  
1. Must Article 3(3) [of Directive 93/13] and point 1(j) of the annex thereto 
entitled ‘Terms referred to in Article 3(3)’ be interpreted as permitting a 
provision under which the seller or supplier may alter the terms of the 
contract unilaterally where a term is laid down, including in general 
conditions, for indexation of the price of services agreed with the consumer 
in accordance with the average consumer price index for the previous year 
published by a public authority, in so far as that the indexation only follows 
an upward progression? 
2. Must the term ‘contractual terms’ in Article 2(a) of Directive 93/13 be 
interpreted as meaning specific wording of the contract or is it to be 
construed as referring to all the legal effects of parts of the wording of the 
contract, even if they are not in the same separate part of the document? 
3. For the purposes of determining unfairness, must each of the negotiated 
contractual terms relating to the consequences of non-performance be 
examined individually or must their cumulative effect as part of the package 
of services be construed as a whole as one term which is to be regarded 
under the point 1(e) of the annex to Directive 93/13 entitled ‘Terms referred 
to in Article 3(3)’ as a term ‘which [has] the object or effect of requiring any 
consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high 
sum in compensation’ and, if some of those terms are unfair, must they be 
excluded in their entirety? 
4. Must Article 4 of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as permitting a provision 
under which the seller or supplier can fix the terms relating to compensation 
in proportion to a standard amount (excluding contractually agreed 
discounts, which also include recompense for part of the amount of 
discounts on subscription contracts and on the market prices of the terminal 
equipment purchased or leased), or must Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 be 
interpreted as permitting a provision under which a term relating to liability 
for non-performance of the contract, which provides that the consumer is to 
pay compensation and bear costs which are manifestly disproportionate to 
the service provided as counter-performance and to the condition under 
which liability for non-performance of the contract is satisfied 
(automatically and without prior notice, with the corresponding interest and 
recovery costs), may be deemed unfair? 
5. Can a court settlement between the mobile telephone operator and a 
qualified entity within the meaning of that directive, such as the Komisia za 
zashtita na potrebitelite (Consumer Protection Commission, Bulgaria), 
produce effects for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 2020/1828, 
in conjunction with Article 7(4)(a) thereof, and, if so, is such an agreement 
also binding on other courts (including any court called upon to rule on a 
legal relationship between the mobile telephone operator and an individual 
consumer) if, for the reasons set out in Case C-600/19, the court did not 
A1 BULGARIA 
 
3 
examine the unfairness or otherwise of the terms when approving the 
settlement? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer 
contracts 
Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective 
interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 May 2022, Ibercaja Banco, C-600/19, 
EU:C:2022:394 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 February 2024, Investcapital, C-724/22, 
EU:C:2024:182 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure), Articles 410 to 411 
Zakon za zashtita na potrebitelite (Law on consumer protection), Articles 143 to 
148, Paragraphs 13, 13.13 and 13.14 of the Supplementary Provisions 
Zakon za elektronnite saobshtenia (Law on electronic communications), 
Articles 225, 226, 228a, 229, 229a, 229b, 230, 230a, 230d 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 A1 Bulgaria claims from its customer V.N.A. payment of an amount of 
BGN 4 130.76, which includes the following items: unpaid invoices for electronic 
communication services provided in the amount of BGN 1 054.06, unpaid 
instalments of the purchase price for an item of equipment in the amount of 
BGN 1 450.02 and compensation in the amount of BGN 1 626.68, which arose on 
account of the premature termination of the contract through the fault of the 
customer. In this case, the customer concluded a contract for nine services, in 
respect of the non-performance of which the following claims are asserted: 
payment of the invoice amounts for electronic communication services provided, 
payment of the purchase price for an item of equipment under a higher-purchase 
contract, compensation, recovery costs and default interest on all amounts. 
2 On 27 September 2024, A1 Bulgaria applied to the Sofia District Court for an 
order for payment to enforce a monetary debt in proceedings for an order for 
payment under Article 410 of the GPK. The aim of that procedure for an order for 
payment is to obtain a court determination that the debtor does not dispute the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-821/24 
 
4  
creditor’s claim and swift satisfaction of the creditor’s claim. If the debtor does 
not raise an objection, the court issues the creditor with a payment order and an 
enforcement order. When examining the application, the court examines of its 
own motion whether consumer contracts contain unfair terms. 
3 In the period from 1 January 2024 to 21 November 2024 alone, the applicant ‘A1 
Bulgaria’ EAD, one of the three mobile telephone operators with a significant 
market share in Bulgaria, applied to Sofia District Court for around 3 600 orders 
for payment under Article 410 of the GPK. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
4 Since the purpose of the procedure for an order for payment is to obtain a court 
determination that the debtor does not dispute the creditor’s claim against it, it 
differs from the usual inter partes procedure, in which both parties present their 
arguments and submit evidence to substantiate their claims. 
5 The Sofia District Court’s order of reference merely states that the application was 
submitted by A1 Bulgaria on 27 September 2024. By order of 4 October 2024, 
the Sofia Regional Court ruled that the application was not in due form because 
the facts underlying the individual claims were not clearly set out and set a 
deadline for specifying those details. Within that period, an application of 
24 October 2024 was received from A1 Bulgaria, in which it specified how the 
amounts claimed had been calculated. By order of 1 November 2024, the Sofia 
District Court again ruled that the application was not in due form, but this time 
with regard to the application of 24 October 2024, and gave the applicant the 
opportunity to clarify whether the prices for the services provided had been altered 
during the term of the contract. On 21 November 2024, an application was 
received from A1 Bulgaria clarifying that the prices for the services provided had 
not been altered. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
6 The referring court asks the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling because it has 
doubts as to the appropriateness [of the relationship] between the services 
provided and the total amount of the costs incurred as a result of the non-
fulfilment of payment obligations in respect those services. The reasons for this 
are as follows. 
7 First, at issue are the terms which provide for the possibility of altering the basic 
monthly fee. The contract with the customer provides that the mobile telephone 
operator has the right to index the basic monthly fee once a year (but not earlier 
than three months after the entry into force of the contract and/or the annex on the 
services) in accordance with the average annual consumer price index of the 
previous year published by the National Statistical Institute (‘the NSI’), in so far 
as that it amounts to at least 1%. Information on the indexed basic fee is included 
A1 BULGARIA 
 
5 
in the customer’s first monthly bill, which he receives after the indexation has 
been carried out. Although the applicant clarified that the prices of the services 
provided had not been altered, the referring court considers that, having regard to 
the principle of effectiveness (C-724/22), when adopting the judicial decision, 
which includes an examination of the consistency between the claims made and 
the evidence adduced, it is necessary to interpret the terms which provide for that 
possibility of altering the basic fee. 
8 The referring court considers that contractual terms in consumer contracts are 
subject to stricter requirements to be in plain intelligible language, which also 
means that the precise procedure to which the term in question relates must be set 
out in a transparent manner in the contract and that, where appropriate, the 
relationship between that procedure and the procedures laid down in other terms 
must also be set out in such a transparent manner that the consumer is able to 
assess the resulting financial consequences for him on the basis of clear and 
intelligible criteria. 
9 In that regard, the referring court expresses doubts as to whether the wording of 
terms providing for ‘indexation’ provides the average consumer with sufficiently 
specific information on possible alterations in the price of services or on the 
possibility of terminating the contract or adapting its content by individual 
negotiation, in particular in cases where the terms provide for the possibility of an 
increase, but not a reduction, in the price. 
10 Must terms which provide for a price alteration on the basis of an objective 
criterion which is independent of the seller or supplier, outside his control and 
constitutes a valid reason for the alteration be set out in such a clear and 
unambiguous manner that the consumer receives sufficiently specific information 
about the possible alterations in the price of services or about the possibility of 
terminating the contract, or are the objective requirements satisfied by a term 
which merely provides for the possibility of increasing the price of services by 
indexation to an annual average consumer price index, in so far as that that index 
amounts to at least 1%, without setting out the indexation method in detail and 
without providing the possibility of reducing the price, which may result in the 
risk and burden of the financial uncertainty being placed on the consumer, that is 
to say with the consequence that the impact of inflation on the annual average 
consumer price index is passed on to the consumer[?] 
11 In addition, the referring court has doubts as to whether a term thus agreed is 
intended to enable, or has the effect of enabling, ‘the seller or supplier to alter the 
terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the 
contract’ within the meaning of point 1(j) of the of the annex to Directive 93/13 
entitled ‘Terms referred to in Article 3(3)’, or whether that provision must be 
interpreted as permitting a provision which enables the seller or supplier to alter 
unilaterally the contractual conditions where the applicable general conditions 
contain a term providing for indexation of the price of services agreed with the 
consumer in accordance with the average consumer price index of the previous 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-821/24 
 
6  
year published by a public authority (the NSI), in so far as that the indexation only 
follows an upward progression. 
12 Second, the Sofia District Court raises a number of questions in relation to the 
terms providing for the payment of compensation. The first question is whether 
the term ‘term’ within the meaning of Directive 93/13 must understood as an 
individually negotiated contract (in the sense of a specific term in a contract) or as 
the totality of all agreements in a consumer contract whose cumulative effect is 
capable of having an unfair effect, including as a totality of all agreements relating 
to a package of services contained in one and the same consumer contract. The 
present case concerns a package of services included in a single consumer contract 
(a total of nine services are covered by a single contract number) and in respect of 
each of those services, compensation for non-performance of the contract, 
recovery costs and default interest thereon were agreed (that is to say terms 
concerning one and the same non-fulfilment of an obligation). Is it necessary for 
the determination of unfair terms to examine the cumulative effect of all the terms 
of a contract in their entirety, including the agreed costs of non-performance of the 
contract and default interest, the latter being charged also on compensation and 
costs, or must, in the case of terms of a similar kind, their cumulative effect be 
taken into account in assessing unfairness, that is to say must each of the agreed 
terms be examined individually in terms of the consequences of non-performance 
of the contract, or must their cumulative effect, including as part of the package as 
a whole, be interpreted as a term which is to be regarded as unfair under point 1(e) 
of the of the annex to Directive 93/13 entitled ‘Terms referred to in point 1(a) of 
the Annex’ as a term ‘requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to 
pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’ or, if it is established that 
some of those terms are unfair, must they be excluded in their entirety if one and 
the same obligation is not fulfilled [?] 
13 The referring court also examines the extent to which, in their current form, 
mobile telephone operators’ terms on compensation are intelligible to consumers 
so that they are able foresee the financial consequences thereof. 
14 The system of protection created by Directive 93/13 is based on the idea that the 
consumer is in a weaker position than that of the seller or provider, in particular as 
regards information, which justifies the requirement of transparency that must be 
interpreted broadly, that is to say that the term in question must not only be 
intelligible to the consumer from a grammatical point of view, but the consumer 
must also be able to foresee the financial consequences for him or her on the basis 
of clear and intelligible criteria. Therefore, there are strict requirements on 
contractual terms in consumer contracts to be in plain intelligible language so that 
the average consumer can not only determine the amounts concerned, but also 
assess the potentially significant financial consequences for him or herself. In that 
case, when calculating the compensation, account should be taken of the fact that 
that they are proportionate to the discounts granted on the basic fee or the price 
reduction on the purchased equipment (more specifically, three times the basic 
monthly fee for a fixed-term subscription excluding discounts, including the 
A1 BULGARIA 
 
7 
repayment of part of the amount of discounts on subscription contracts and on the 
market prices of the terminal equipment [purchased or leased] corresponding to 
the remaining duration of the subscription in question), and that the termination 
period is irrelevant to the amount of compensation. Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13 
states that: ‘Without prejudice to Article 7, the unfairness of a contractual term 
shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for 
which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of 
the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and 
to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is 
dependent’; and Article 4(2): ‘Assessment of the unfair nature of the terms shall 
relate neither to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract nor to the 
adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services 
or goods supplies in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain 
intelligible language’. In the view of the referring court, there is no question that, 
in the event of wrongful failure to perform contracts, the party at fault is liable for 
the consequences and must pay damages to the other party for the harm suffered, 
it being permissible to agree on such damages in the form of compensation. 
However, the referring court expresses doubts as to whether, where the 
compensation is determined on a relative basis (at three times the basic fee 
excluding discounts, including the repayment of part of the amount of discounts 
on the subscription contracts and market prices), the standard amount of the basic 
fee should be taken as a basis, and not on the amount of the monthly basic fee at 
the time of the non-performance of the contract or, where the compensation is 
determined on a relative basis (at the rate of the discount on the price of the 
purchased item of equipment) the price of the equipment on full cash payment at 
the time of the conclusion of the purchase contract or the price stated in higher-
purchase contract should be relevant if the higher-purchase contract is linked to a 
subscription based on an existing service contract, and not the price determined on 
the basis of the standard price, excluding discounts. Having regard to the nature of 
the goods or services covered by that contract and all the circumstances 
surrounding the conclusion of the contract, the referring court doubts that such 
terms can be regarded as being in language which is plain and intelligible to the 
average consumer. Notwithstanding the agreed cap on compensation (three times 
the basic monthly fee for the services of a fixed-term subscription at the standard 
rate, excluding discounts) or their cumulative effect, can it be concluded that the 
way in which they are calculated is clear to the average consumer – is clear 
information included on the total amount of the regular basic monthly fee, 
excluding cumulative discounts, payable by the consumer at the time of 
termination of the contract, from which the amount of compensation is calculated, 
as well as how it is made up[?] Is that also true of compensation in the event of a 
discount being granted on the price of the equipment, including in cases where 
that is not stated in the contract, when negotiating the price of the equipment 
including and excluding a discount, and also in cases where there is no specific 
information on the value and type of equipment according to the operator’s 
current price list[?] The referring court therefore considers that it is necessary to 
clarify whether Article 4 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as permitting a 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-821/24 
 
8  
provision under which the seller or supplier can fix the terms relating to the 
amounts of the compensation in proportion to a standard amount (excluding 
contractually agreed discounts, terms which also include recompense for part of 
the amount of the discounts on subscription contracts and on the market price of 
the terminal equipment purchased or leased) or whether Article 3(1) of Directive 
93/13 must be interpreted as permitting a provision under which a term relating to 
liability for non-performance of the contract, which provides that the consumer is 
to pay compensation and bear costs which are manifestly disproportionate to the 
service provided as counter-performance and to the condition under which 
liability for non-performance of the contract is satisfied (automatically and 
without prior notice, with the corresponding interest and recovery costs), may be 
deemed unfair? 
15 Third, the court settlement concluded between the mobile telephone operator and 
the Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite (Consumer Protection Commission, 
Bulgaria) (which safeguards the protection of consumers’ interests) has the effect 
of a final and unappealable judgment approving an agreement, the content of 
which is reflected in the operator’s applicable general conditions. The referring 
court considers it necessary to determine whether that court settlement produces 
effects for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 2020/1828, in conjunction 
with Article 7(4)(a) thereof, and, if so, whether such an agreement is also binding 
on other courts (including any court called upon to rule on a legal relationship 
between the mobile telephone operator and an individual consumer) if, for the 
reasons set out in Case C-600/19, the court did not examine the unfairness or 
otherwise of the terms when approving the settlement[.]