Order;Information — ECLI:EU:C:2024:112
Date: 2024-02-06
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-425/23 – 1 
Case C-425/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling under Article 98(1) of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Court 
Date lodged:  
11 July 2023 
Referring court:  
Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
11 July 2023 
Applicants in the order for payment procedures:  
Profi Credit Bulgaria EOOD 
Agentsia za sabirane na vzemania EAD 
City Cash OOD 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Repetitive cases in which, in unilateral proceedings without the participation of 
the debtor (order for payment procedures), the referring court refused to issue 
orders for payment in respect of parts of the claims arising from consumer credit 
agreements, on the grounds that the applicants did not comply with its requests to 
indicate the specific loan instalments demanded of the consumers, instead 
indicating only the total amounts of the claims. In two of the cases, the reviewing 
court (the Sofiyski gradski sad [Sofia City Court, Bulgaria]) decided that there 
was no reason to itemise the instalments and instructed the referring court to issue 
orders for payment. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the reference 
Request under Article 267 TFEU for interpretation of Article 19(1) TEU and 
Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-425/23 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Do Articles 6(1) and Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair 
terms in consumer contracts (Directive 93/13/EEC) permit national case-law such 
as that at issue in the main proceedings under which 
the court issuing an order for payment in respect of only part of the claims arising 
from a credit agreement has no jurisdiction to demand that the creditor indicate 
the amount of the instalments which are demanded of the consumer and is 
obliged, even in the absence of such information, to issue an order for payment in 
respect of the part of the claims which the creditor is pursuing as a lump sum? 
2. Is Article 6(1) of Directive 93/12/EEC, read in conjunction with the 
principle of effectiveness of EU law and Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European 
Union, to be interpreted as meaning that 
instructions to issue a decision on the substance which may infringe EU law and 
which require a lower court to comply with the will of the higher court – not by 
issuing a formal decision referring back to the decision of the higher court, but by 
a decision which is issued in the name of the formation of the lower court – are 
binding on the lower court and do not impinge on its independence as expressed in 
the lower court’s internal conviction as to whether a provision of EU law is 
applicable?  
Provisions of EU legislation and EU case-law relied on 
Treaty on European Union, Article 19(1) 
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer 
contracts, Articles 6 and 7 
Order of the Court of 26 November 2020, DSK Bank and FrontEx International, 
C-807/19, EU:C:2020:967; the referring court makes the present request for a 
preliminary ruling because, in its view, national case-law does not take account of 
that order of the Court. 
Judgment of the Court of 30 June 2022, Profi Credit Bulgaria (offsetting ex 
officio in the event of unfair terms), C-170/21, EU:C:2022:518 
Judgment of the Court of 11 March 2020, Lintner, C-511/17, EU:C:2020:188 
Judgment of the Court of 16 July 2020, Caixabank and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya 
Argentaria, C-224/19 and C-259/19, EU:C:2020:578 
Provisions of national law 
Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure; ‘the GPK’) 
PROFI CREDIT BULGARIA AND OTHERS  
 
3 
Zakon za potrebitelskia kredit (Law on consumer credit) 
Zakon za zashtita na potrebitelite (Law on consumer protection) 
Zakon za sadebnata vlast (Law on the judiciary), Article 130 
Zakon za zadalzheniata i dogovorite (Law on obligations and contracts), 
Articles 76 and 86 
Decree No 426 of 18 December 2014 setting the statutory interest rate applicable 
in the event of late payment 
Interpretative Decision No 4/2013 of the Obshto sabranie na grazhdanskata i 
targovskata kolegii (General Assembly of Civil and Commercial Chambers; 
Bulgaria; ‘the OSGTK’) of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of 
Cassation, Bulgaria; ‘the VKS’) of 18 June 2014 
Order Nr 38/16.01.2020 of the Sofiyski okrazhen sad (Sofia Regional Court, 
Bulgaria) in appeal proceedings in Civil Case No 938/2019, on which the 
applicant relies in Civil Case No 36162/2022 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure 
1 It should be noted that the request is submitted in the context of a national order 
for payment procedure, which is a formal (written) and predominantly unilateral 
procedure. At issue is a procedure in which the applicant seeks an order for 
payment, a decision whereby the court orders the debtor either to recognise and 
settle the creditor’s claim or to contest the claim within a specified period; if the 
claim is not contested, the order is enforced. Accordingly, unless otherwise 
indicated, the ‘facts’ that are set out comprise assertions made by the applicants, 
which the debtors may challenge. 
Civil Case No 30200/2021: 
2 The applicant is Profi Credit Bulgaria EOOD, a company incorporated under 
Bulgarian law the commercial activity of which consists in granting what are 
known as ‘instant loans’ – low-value, high-interest consumer loans granted almost 
without security. The debtors are two natural persons of Bulgarian nationality who 
would only become parties to the proceedings once the court has examined 
whether the conditions for issuing an order for payment are in place and has 
issued that order. 
3 The applicant submits that it granted the first debtor a consumer loan with a 
principal of 1 500 Bulgarian leva (BGN) on 17 July 2019 and that the second 
debtor is a guarantor and is jointly and severally liable for the amounts under the 
agreement. It submits that the loan was subject to an effective annual interest rate 
of 48.87% and the debt was to be repaid within 24 months (total repayment 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-425/23 
 
4  
amount: BGN 2 214.90). In addition to that claim, the applicant states, there are 
claims for the following supplementary services: ‘fast’ (to have the loan granted 
more quickly) for a fee of BGN 450 and ‘flexi’ (to have the option of fully or 
partially deferring instalments) for a fee of BGN 675. That, it submits, brings the 
total amount of the claim to BGN 3 339.90, divided into 24 instalments of 
BGN 139.17. 
4 In the order for payment procedure, an amount of BGN 1 171.47 is claimed in 
respect of the principal alongside interest, fees and other claims, including claims 
of BGN 300 relating to the ‘fast’ service and BGN 449.96 relating to the ‘flexi’ 
service – lower than the original amounts. 
5 By order of 17 June 2021, the referring court requested that the applicant specify 
how the principal of BGN 1 171.47 had been calculated (of which parts of which 
instalments it was composed), since it does not correspond to the sum of the 
principal amounts within any of the instalments in the repayment schedule. The 
referring court also wishes to establish whether the consumer has made payments 
(it is disputed whether the court in an order for payment procedure is permitted to 
request information from the applicant to that effect, as that would compel the 
applicant to acknowledge a fact unfavourable to it). The applicant complied with 
the court’s request. 
6 The referring court considers that the request was not satisfied with sufficient 
precision in respect of the interest claimed, as it is not clear on what amount the 
interest was calculated. It therefore dismissed the application by order of 6 July 
2021, against which the applicant filed an appeal. 
7 By Order No 489/13.01.2023 in the appeal proceedings in Civil Case 
No 10165/2021, the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) in its capacity as the 
reviewing court set aside the refusal to issue the order for payment on the grounds 
that the applicant had indicated the total amount of the principal, interest and fees, 
without itemising it by instalments, which that court considered sufficient for a 
proper application. The Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) therefore 
instructed the referring court to issue an order for payment. It is settled case-law 
that the order of payment is to be issued by the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Sofia 
Regional Court) without any need to indicate that this is done to comply with the 
will of the appeal court. 
Civil Case No 36162/2022: 
8 The applicant in Civil Case No 36162/2022 is Agentsia za sabirane na vzemania 
EAD, a company incorporated under Bulgarian law the commercial activity of 
which consists in collecting debts – that is to say, purchasing claims from other 
entities (financial institutions other than banks, mobile telephone service 
providers, public utility companies) and asserting those claims in court against the 
debtors, who are natural persons (consumers). 
PROFI CREDIT BULGARIA AND OTHERS  
 
5 
9 As in the case described previously, the applicant seeks the issue of an order for 
payment against the borrower in respect of a claim arising from a consumer credit 
agreement, a claim which the applicant submits has been assigned to it by the 
original creditor. According to the applicant, the original creditor on 24 February 
2020 granted a consumer a loan of BGN 700 at an effective annual interest rate of 
49.90%, the loan to be repaid in 17 weekly instalments, namely two instalments of 
BGN 5.45 and 15 instalments of BGN 49.63 (or a total repayment amount of 
BGN 755.35). 
10 Under the credit agreement, no more than 10 days after the conclusion of the 
agreement the consumer ought to have provided the creditor with security in the 
form of an unconditional bank guarantee or a solvent guarantor with a salary of at 
least seven times the national minimum wage. According to the repayment 
schedule, if that obligation was not satisfied then the first two instalments would 
each increase by BGN 55.55 and the other 15 instalments would each increase by 
BGN 11.37, bringing the debt to BGN 1 037 to be repaid within three months, 
between 1 May and 21 August 2020. 
11 In the order for payment procedure, only BGN 490.71 of the BGN 700 principal 
which had been granted, and remunerative interest amounting to BGN 16.96, is 
claimed. As those amounts do not correspond to the sum of any of the instalments 
from the credit agreement, the referring court requested by order of 13 July 2022 
that the applicant indicate how the claim had been calculated (of which 
instalments it was claiming parts) and whether payments had been made against 
the loan. 
12 The applicant resolutely refused to indicate whether contractual payments had 
been made, because it considered that the court was pressuring it to admit that the 
liability had been discharged. It also refused to itemise its claim by instalments or 
parts of instalments, stating that it would require the advice of an expert, an 
accountant, to answer that question and would access that service in the event that 
the consumer disputed the claim. In those circumstances, the referring court 
dismissed the application by order of 4 October 2022 because the applicant did 
not comply with its requests; the applicant challenged that order. 
13 By Order No 45/03.01.2023 in the appeal proceedings in Civil Case 
No 13554/2022, the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) set aside the order 
dismissing the application and observed that the applicant was not obliged under 
the provisions of Bulgarian procedural law to itemise its claim by instalments, as 
the order for payment procedure was unilateral and ‘strictly formal’. In the view 
of that court, it is not for the court to calculate the manner in which lenders have 
constituted their claims against consumers. That, it held, was the responsibility of 
the debtor, who would have to file an objection (because otherwise the relief 
provided by the order for payment procedure for the enforcement of uncontested 
claims would be eliminated). The referring court, in turn, was unconditionally 
instructed to issue the order for payment in respect of all the claims asserted by 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-425/23 
 
6  
the applicant, with the source of that order for payment having to be the Sofiyski 
rayonen sad (Sofia Regional Court). 
Civil Case No 23000/2023: 
14 In Civil Case No 23000/2023, the applicant, Agentsia za sabirane na vzemania 
EAD, seeks the issue of an order for payment against the borrower in respect of a 
claim arising from a consumer credit agreement, a claim which has been assigned 
to it by the original creditor. According to the applicant, the original creditor on 
24 February 2020 granted a consumer a loan of BGN 5 000 at an effective annual 
interest rate of 28.18%, with agreement on an insurance premium of BGN 889.50 
and an arrangement fee of BGN 175 in respect of which it is not known whether 
they were included in the effective annual interest rate. The loan was to be repaid 
in 30 monthly instalments of BGN 250.34 (or a total repayment amount of 
BGN 7 510.20). 
15 In the order for payment procedure, only BGN 4 972.23 of the BGN 5 000 
principal which had been granted, and remunerative interest amounting to 
BGN 1 084.99, is claimed. As those amounts do not correspond to the sum of any 
of the instalments from the credit agreement, the referring court requested by 
order of 17 June 2023 that the applicant indicate how the claim had been 
calculated and whether payments had been made against the loan. The applicant 
resolutely refused to indicate the size of the instalments and invoked the view of a 
number of regional courts that such requests on the part of the court with 
jurisdiction to issue orders for payment were absolutely not permissible. 
Civil Case No 22748/2023: 
16 The applicant is City Cash OOD, a company registered in Bulgaria chiefly 
engaged in granting ‘instant loans’. The applicant submits that it granted a 
consumer a loan of BGN 1 400 on 14 January 2022 at an effective annual interest 
rate of BGN 49.90. The loan was to be repaid in 16 fortnightly instalments – three 
instalments of BGN 21.82 and 13 instalments of BGN 119.80, meaning a total 
repayment amount of BGN 1 622.83. 
17 Under the credit agreement, no more than 3 days after the conclusion of the 
agreement the consumer must provide the creditor with security in the form of an 
unconditional bank guarantee or two solvent guarantors, each with a salary of at 
least four times the national minimum wage. If that obligation is not satisfied, the 
total amount of the claim increases by BGN 1 129.17 (payable in instalments) to 
BGN 2 752, payable within 7 months between 28 January and 26 August 2022. 
18 In the order for payment procedure, only BGN 620.42 of the principal and a 
contractual penalty of BGN 350 are claimed. As those amounts do not correspond 
to the sum of any of the instalments from the credit agreement, the referring court 
requested that the applicant indicate how the claim had been calculated and 
whether payments had been made on the loan. The applicant resolutely refused to 
PROFI CREDIT BULGARIA AND OTHERS  
 
7 
itemise its claim and stated that the debtor had paid part of the claims, though in 
an irregular manner, which was why the applicant had offset the payments against 
the claim in accordance with the relevant legal provisions – which it assures the 
court were complied with. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
Authority of the court with jurisdiction to issue orders for payment to demand 
that the applicant, being the creditor, itemise its claim: 
19 Under Article 6 of Directive 93/13, the authorities of the Member States must 
ensure that consumers need not tolerate the consequences of potentially unfair 
terms unless expressly requested by the consumers. 
20 According to the guidance given by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 
11 March 2020, Lintner (C-511/17, EU:C:2020:188, paragraph 38), in unilateral 
proceedings such as the order for payment procedure the court may also find that a 
party to a contract is not entitled to protection if, though not having established 
with certainty that a particular term should be regarded as unfair within the 
meaning of Directive 93/13/EEC, it nevertheless has reasonable doubts in that 
regard. According to the guidance given to the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Sofia 
Regional Court) by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 26 November 2020, 
DSK Bank and FrontEx International (C-807/19, EU:C:2020:967), the court with 
jurisdiction to issue orders for payment has, for that purpose, the authority to 
request information from the lender in order that it may assess whether the 
consequences of a potentially unfair term within a consumer contract are being 
relied on in the procedure. The obligation referred to stems from the requirement 
laid down in Article 7 of Directive 93/13 to provide effective means to protect 
consumers from being bound by unfair terms. 
21 In the present case, there are doubts regarding possible unfairness which arise 
from a series of contractual penalty clauses which may not be in line with the 
requirement of good faith and fairness but may instead be intended to enrich the 
creditors. As the applicant in Civil Case No 22748/2023 itself concedes, the 
creditors calculate before bringing the case to court how much the consumer has 
paid and offset that amount against the debt in order to claim only what they 
consider is owed to them. Without itemisation by individual instalments, however, 
it is impossible for the court, never mind for the less well-informed consumer, to 
assess how exactly that offsetting was calculated. The applicant in Civil Case 
No 36162/2022 expressly stated that it would need a qualified expert to verify the 
accuracy of the calculations. 
22 The Court also recognised the above points in its judgment of 16 July 2020, 
Caixabank and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (C-224/19 and C-259/19, 
EU:C:2020:578, paragraphs 97 to 99), noting that the complicated mechanisms 
used to calculate the claims arising from a bank loan make it very difficult for the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-425/23 
 
8  
consumer – when he or she has to decide whether to bring an action against 
demands for payment of amounts arising from unfair terms – to assess the 
likelihood of the action being well founded. It appears all the more difficult in 
those cases where serious doubts exist in respect of payments made. 
23 The referring court therefore has some doubt as to whether settled case-law 
establishing that a creditor need only indicate how much money it wishes to have 
the court grant it from the credit agreement in order to obtain a potentially 
enforceable instrument is compatible with the objectives of Directive 93/13 
relating to effective consumer protection. 
Mechanism by which an order for payment is issued by the regional courts in 
the event of their refusal to issue an order for payment being set aside: 
24 Under Articles 410 and 411 of the GPK, orders for payment are issued in Bulgaria 
only by the regional courts as courts of first instance. That follows from the 
legislative understanding that an order for payment constitutes not a specific 
decision by the court in a dispute but a judicial enforcement instrument similar to 
the general instrument by which the enforcement of judgments in civil cases is 
authorised in Bulgaria: the enforcement order. 
25 On the basis of that legislative decision, it is settled case-law that, if the regional 
court has for whatever reason refused to issue an order for payment and that ruling 
is challenged and its decision set aside, then the appeal court does not issue the 
order for payment directly but gives the court of first instance binding 
instructions, final and irreversible under national law, to issue an order for 
payment, regardless of the fact that the court of first instance has already taken the 
opposite position. 
26 Unlike the enforcement order, which establishes the force of res judicata of 
another court’s judicial decision and notes that fact on its title page (being 
therefore not a decision on the substance but a formal decision by which the 
existence of another, enforceable decision is established), the order for payment 
constitutes a decision on the substance. With the order for payment, there is no 
possibility for the judge of the regional court to note the enforceability of another 
judicial decision; the order for payment is his or her decision. In those 
circumstances, the question arises whether the obligation which the higher court 
imposes on the regional court to deliver a decision contrary to its will constitutes 
an impingement of the regional court’s independence which the Member States 
must not permit under Article 19(1) TEU. 
27 It should be noted that, in accordance with paragraph 52 of the judgment of 
30 June 2022, Profi Credit Bulgaria (offsetting ex officio in the event of unfair 
terms) (C-170/21, EU:C:2022:518), if the instructions of the higher court are 
incompatible with EU law, they must be disregarded. To date, however, that issue 
has not been addressed in the context of judicial independence. 
PROFI CREDIT BULGARIA AND OTHERS  
 
9 
Observations of the referring court 
28 The request for a preliminary hearing is made because the referring court 
considers that the extent of judicial review to be carried out ex officio in respect of 
consumer rights is, despite the guidance given by the Court of Justice in the order 
of 26 November 2020, DSK Bank and FrontEx International (C-807/19, 
EU:C:2020:967), still being restricted by Bulgarian case-law on the order for 
payment procedure. The formalistic understanding of that procedure is clearly at 
odds with the Court’s understanding of the term ‘effectiveness’. The creditors 
concede that but are acting opportunistically in the context of the existing case-
law. 
29 The question consequently needs to be raised again and, in the view of the 
referring court, must be answered decisively this time, with a clear statement of 
the role to be played by the court of first instance and of the extent to which it can 
be reviewed by the court of second instance. The way that the authority to oblige a 
creditor to provide information is governed is evidently considered in Bulgarian 
case-law neither as an obligation on the court to process that information nor as a 
source of any legal consequences. The task of protecting their rights ultimately 
lies with consumers, although it is very difficult for them to understand which 
rights are at issue. The referring court therefore asks for an unequivocal answer as 
to whether or not the case-law described above is permissible (first question 
referred for a preliminary ruling). 
30 However, the formalistic understanding of the effectiveness obligation is not 
limited solely to the position of the court vis-à-vis the consumer. More than one 
Bulgarian judge is of the view that the instructions given by the court of last 
instance in the order for payment procedure are not instructions on the substance 
of the case and the court of first instance therefore cannot deviate from them. 
Judgment lies with the court of second instance, and the court of first instance 
must simply reiterate the higher court’s considerations. In the view of the referring 
court, instructions of that kind are permissible as directions as to what steps need 
to be taken in the procedure but not when they specify the content of the final 
decision. The very nature of the judicial profession requires that each judge have 
the freedom to express his or her own views, and if another panel has a different 
opinion, that opinion must be reflected in the final decision but cannot be imposed 
by means of administrative instructions. It is therefore also necessary to examine 
whether, in the particular case of instructions on the substance at the conclusion of 
proceedings, it is appropriate to apply the case-law of the Court under which 
instructions contrary to EU law which are issued in the context of review by 
higher courts are not binding (second question referred for a preliminary ruling).