Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2023:29
Date: 2023-01-17
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-379/21 – 1 
Case C-379/21 
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:  
17 June 2021  
Referring court:  
Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
17 June 2021  
Applicant in the main proceedings:  
TBI Bank EAD 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Application for the issuance of an order for immediate enforcement of a pecuniary 
obligation on the basis of a document pursuant to Article 417(2) of the 
Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Bulgarian Code of Civil Procedure; ‘the 
GPK’) – an extract from the books of TBI Bank EAD – against a consumer for 
sums of money consisting of a claim for the principal, (remunerative) interest 
owed under the contract, default interest and a one-off risk assessment fee, due 
under a consumer credit agreement concluded between the parties. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on 
unfair terms in consumer contracts. 
Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as requiring the 
national court, in proceedings to which the debtor is not party until the issuance of 
a court order for immediate payment, to assess of its own motion the unfairness of 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-379/21 
 
2  
a contractual term, including if there is a mere suspicion that the term is unfair, 
and disapply it? 
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the national court 
required to refuse to issue a court decision ordering immediate payment altogether 
where only part of the claim made is based on a likely unfair contractual term 
giving rise to the amount of the claim, including in cases where, in proceedings to 
which the debtor is not party until the issuance of a court order for immediate 
payment, it is not possible to determine the specific amount of all the elements of 
the claims based on terms which are not suspected of being unfair? 
3. If the first question is answered in the affirmative and the second in the 
negative, is the national court required partially to refuse to issue a court decision 
ordering payment in respect of the part of the claim that is based on the unfair 
term? 
4. If the third question is answered in the affirmative, is the national court 
required, and, if so, under what conditions, to take into account of its own motion 
the consequences of the unfairness of a term in the case where it has available to it 
information about a payment based on that term, inter alia by offsetting that 
payment against other outstanding debts under the contract, as provided for in 
respect of similar cases under national law? 
5. If the second, third and fourth questions are answered in the affirmative, is 
the national court bound by the instructions of a higher court which, under 
national law, are binding on the instance under review, in the case where those 
instructions do not take the consequences of the unfairness of a contractual term in 
the consumer contract into account? 
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, Article 6(1) 
Case С-243/08 
Provisions of national law and case-law relied on 
I. Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure; ‘the 
GPK’): 
Article 278. [This provision concerns appeals. They are heard in closed session. 
The order made on appeal is binding on the lower court.] 
Article 411. The application shall be lodged with the district court within the 
district of which the debtor has his or her permanent address or domicile [time 
TBI BANK 
 
3 
limit for verifying territorial jurisdiction]. An application against a consumer shall 
be lodged with the court in the district of which the consumer has his or her 
current address or, in the absence of a current address, [with the court] in the 
district of which he or she has his or her permanent address. [procedure to be 
followed if it is filed with a court without jurisdiction]. 
(2) The court shall examine the application at a preparatory hearing and shall 
issue an enforcement order 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 errors within three days of notification; 
2. the claim is unlawful or contrary to the accepted principles of morality; 
3. the claim is based on an unfair term in a consumer contract or there are 
reasonable grounds to suspect that that is the case; 
4. and 5. [These provisions concern the case where the debtor has no permanent 
address in Bulgaria or does not exercise his or her occupation in Bulgaria.] 
 (3) If the application is granted, the court shall issue an enforcement order, a 
copy of which shall be served on the debtor. 
Article 413. (1) The parties may not lodge an appeal against an enforcement 
order, except as regards the decision on costs. 
(2) The applicant may appeal against the order dismissing the application in full 
or in part; a copy for service need not be enclosed. 
Article 414. (1) The debtor may lodge a written objection against the enforcement 
order or parts of the order. [grounds for objection] 
(2) Objections must be lodged within one month of service of the order. That 
period cannot be extended. 
Article 415. (1) The court shall notify the applicant that he or she may initiate 
proceedings to pursue his or her claim in the following cases: 
1. the objection has been lodged in time; 
2. [service if the debtor cannot be located]; 
3. the court has dismissed the application for an enforcement order. 
(2) If the court notified of the facility to initiate proceedings in the case referred to 
in point 2 of paragraph 1, it shall order provisional suspension of enforcement, if 
a writ of enforcement has been issued under Article 418. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-379/21 
 
4  
(3) Proceedings initiated in accordance with point 1 or 2 of paragraph 1 are 
proceedings for a declaratory judgment. Proceedings initiated in accordance with 
point 3 of paragraph 1 are injunction proceedings. 
(4) Proceedings shall be initiated within one month of notification; [details 
regarding the court fee] 
(5) If the applicant fails to adduce proof that he or she initiated proceedings 
within the period prescribed, the court shall declare that the enforcement order is 
null and void in part or in full, together with the writ of enforcement issued in 
accordance with Article 418. 
Article 417. The applicant may also request the issuance of an enforcement order 
if the claim, regardless of its amount, is based upon: 
1. an act of an administrative body, enforcement of which it is for the civil courts 
to authorise; 
2. an accounting document or excerpt from the books establishing claims of 
organs of the State and municipalities, or an extract from a bank’s books to 
which a document establishing the bank’s claim, together with all annexes 
thereto, is to be attached, including the general conditions applicable. 
3. an authentic instrument, an agreement or other contract, bearing notarised 
signatures concerning the obligations set out therein to pay sums of money [or 
other fungible items]; 
4. [concerns the property pledged] 
5. an extract from the Register of Special Pledges in relation to a registered 
contract of sale with a retention of title until payment in full or in relation to a 
leasing agreement concerning the return of items sold or leased; 
6. a pledge agreement or mortgage deed pursuant to Article 160 and 
Article 173(3) of the Zakon za zadalzheniata i dogovorite [Bulgarian Law on 
obligations and contracts]; 
7. a final decision establishing a civil claim of the State or a municipality, if 
enforcement is governed by this Code; 
8. [concerns monetary claims in employment relationships]; 
9. (previously point 8) a decision establishing a shortfall; 
10. (previously point 9) a promissory note or bill of exchange or other 
comparable security relating to the claim, and a bond and the associated coupons. 
Where the security secures a claim arising out of a contract concluded with a 
consumer, the contract, if it is in written form, shall be attached to the application, 
together with all annexes thereto, including the general conditions applicable. 
TBI BANK 
 
5 
Article 418. (1) If the application is accompanied by a document referred to in 
Article 417 on which the claim is based, the creditor may request the court to 
order immediate enforcement and to issue a writ of enforcement. 
(2) The writ of enforcement shall be issued after the court has verified the formal 
validity of the document and established that it evidences a claim enforceable 
against the debtor. To issue the writ of enforcement, the court shall make a note to 
that effect on the document produced and on the enforcement order. 
(3) If, according to the document produced, the issue of whether the debt has 
fallen due depends on consideration being provided or on something else 
occurring, that provision or occurrence must be attested by an official document 
or by a document from the debtor. 
(4) An appeal may be brought against an order dismissing in whole or in part the 
application for a writ of enforcement within the period of one week from 
notification, by way of an appeal no copy of which need be produced for service. 
(5) The enforcement order on which a note regarding the writ of enforcement 
has been made shall be served by the bailiff together with a copy of the document 
on the basis of which the enforcement order was issued. The bailiff shall send to 
the court without delay a copy of the notification of service together with the 
documents served, the endorsement of service appearing on each individual 
document. 
Article 419. (1) An appeal may be brought against the order granting an 
application for immediate enforcement. That appeal shall be lodged within one 
month of service of the enforcement order. The appeal must be lodged at the same 
time as the objection against the order. 
(2) The bringing of an appeal against the order for immediate enforcement shall 
not have suspensory effect on enforcement. 
(3) The court shall set aside the order if the conditions laid down in the first 
sentence of Article 418(2) and in Article 418(3) are not met or if the claim is 
based on an unfair term in a consumer credit agreement. 
Article 420. (1) The objection against the enforcement order shall not have 
suspensory effect on enforcement in the cases referred to in Article 417(1) to (9), 
except where the debtor provides the creditor with appropriate security [in 
accordance with Articles 180 and 181 of the Law on obligations and contracts 
[Zakon za zadalzheniata i dogovorite]]. Where the debtor is a consumer, the 
security shall not exceed one third of the claim. 
(2) A court which has ordered immediate enforcement may suspend it, even in the 
absence of security under paragraph 1, where an application for suspension of 
enforcement has been submitted, supported by written evidence that: 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-379/21 
 
6  
1. the claim is not due; 
2. the claim is based on an unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer; 
3. the amount of the claim due under the contract concluded with the consumer 
has been incorrectly calculated. 
(3) The order made upon the application for suspension may be challenged by 
means of an appeal. 
(4) The order to suspend shall be immediately enforceable notwithstanding any 
appeal against it. 
(5) If an action has been brought, the court which decides on the action 
pursuant to Article 422(1) shall have jurisdiction to decide on the application for 
suspension. 
Article 421. (1) In the case of several debtors, the security referred to in 
Article 420(1) shall serve to benefit only the person or persons in respect of whom 
it was provided. 
(2) If the objection is directed against only part of the claim, the court shall 
order suspension only in respect of the relevant part of the claim. 
Article 422. (1) An action for declaratory judgment acknowledging the claim shall 
be deemed to have been brought at the time when the application for an 
enforcement order was lodged, provided that the period prescribed in 
Article 415(4) has been observed. 
(2) The bringing of an action in accordance with paragraph 1 shall not have the 
effect of suspending the immediate enforcement granted …. 
(3) If the action is dismissed by final judgment, enforcement shall be 
discontinued …. 
(4) No writ reversing enforcement shall be issued if the action is dismissed on 
the ground that the claim is unenforceable. 
2. Zakon za kreditnite institutsii (Law on credit institutions; ‘the ZKI’) 
Article 60. (1) When granting a loan, the bank may not accept as security shares 
issued by it or by persons related to it. 
(2) If the loan or individual instalments of the loan are not repaid on the agreed 
dates or if the term of the loan is accelerated due to non-payment of one or more 
instalments within the stipulated period, the bank may request that an order for 
immediate enforcement pursuant to Article 418 [GPK] on the basis of an extract 
from its books. The extract shall contain at least the following information: 
TBI BANK 
 
7 
1. the number of instalments not repaid on the agreed due dates or only 
partially repaid and the total amount overdue; 
2. the total amount of the outstanding part of the total amount due from the 
consumer, including the principal and unpaid interest owed under the contract; 
3. the amount of compensation for default in respect of overdue payments; 
(3) [sale of pledged property by the bank] 
(4) [statutory mortgage over immovable property in favour of the bank] 
(5) Where the credit agreement has been concluded under the conditions of 
Article 24(2)(1) of the Zakon za kreditite za nedvizhimi imoti na potrebiteli (Law 
on consumer real estate loans), the creditor shall be deemed to be fully and finally 
satisfied with respect to its claims upon receipt of the amount from the sale of the 
real estate. 
(6) [cancellation or release of securities upon full repayment of the loan] 
3. Zakon za zadalzheniata i dogovorite (Law on obligations and contracts; 
‘the ZZD’): 
Article 76. (1) A person who owes the performance of several obligations of the 
same kind to the same person may, in so far as enforcement is not sufficient to 
extinguish all the claims, specify which of them he or she is extinguishing. If he or 
she does not specify this, the most onerous claim shall be extinguished. In the case 
of several claims that are equally onerous, the oldest shall be extinguished, and if 
they all arose at the same time, each claim shall be extinguished proportionately. 
(2) Where enforcement is not sufficient to cover the interest, the charges and the 
claim for the principal, the charges shall be repaid first, then the interest and 
finally the claim for the principal. 
4. Zakon za potrebitelskia kredit (Law on consumer credit; ‘the ZPK’) 
Article 9. (1) A consumer credit agreement is an agreement whereby a creditor 
grants or promises to grant to a consumer credit in the form of a deferred 
payment, a loan or other similar financial accommodation [exceptions]. 
(2) The contracting parties to the consumer credit agreement are the consumer 
and the creditor. 
(3) A consumer is a natural person who, when concluding a consumer credit 
agreement, acts outside his or her trade or profession. 
(4) A creditor is a natural or legal person who grants or promises to grant a 
consumer credit in the course of his or her trade or profession. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-379/21 
 
8  
Article 10а. (1) The creditor may charge the consumer fees and commissions for 
additional services related to the consumer credit agreement. 
(2) The creditor may not charge fees or commissions for activities related to 
the drawdown and servicing of the credit. 
(3) The creditor may charge fees and/or commissions for the same activity only 
once. 
(4) The nature and amount of fees and/or commissions and the activity for 
which they are charged must be clearly and precisely specified in the consumer 
credit agreement. 
Article 16. (1) Before the conclusion of the credit agreement, the creditor shall 
assess the consumer’s creditworthiness on the basis of sufficient information, 
including that obtained from the consumer; where appropriate, it shall also 
consult the Central Credit Register or other database used in the Republic of 
Bulgaria for assessing the creditworthiness of consumers. 
(2) In deciding whether to grant consumer credits, the creditor may use the 
Central Credit Register or other database used in the Republic of Bulgaria for 
assessing the creditworthiness of consumers and take into account the information 
contained in the register when managing the risk associated with the granting of 
credit. 
(3) If the parties agree to change the total amount of credit after the conclusion of 
the credit agreement, the creditor is obliged to update the financial information at 
his or her disposal concerning the consumer and assess the consumer’s 
creditworthiness before any increase in the total amount of credit by an amount 
exceeding 25 per cent of the agreed amount of credit. 
Article 17. [in the granting of cross-border credit, conditions for access to and use 
of information contained in the Central Credit Register or in another database used 
in the Republic of Bulgaria] 
Article 18. [informing the consumer of the result of the check carried out for the 
purposes of assessing his or her creditworthiness, in the event that the credit 
application is rejected] 
(2) [non-application of the first paragraph where the provision of such 
information is prohibited or contrary to the law or objectives of public policy or 
public security] 
(3) [application of the provisions on the protection of consumers’ personal data] 
Article 19. (1) The annual percentage rate of charge of the loan shall represent 
the current and future total cost of the credit to the consumer (interest, other 
direct or indirect costs, commissions, fees of any nature, including those owed to a 
TBI BANK 
 
9 
broker in respect of the conclusion of the contract), expressed as an annual 
percentage of the total amount of the loan granted. 
(2) [calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge] 
(3) [The following costs shall not be taken into account in the calculation of the 
annual percentage rate of charge: 1. costs to be borne by the consumer in the event 
of non-performance of his or her obligations under the consumer credit 
agreement; 2. costs other than the purchase price of the product or service owed 
by the consumer; 3. costs of maintaining an account in connection with the 
consumer credit agreement, costs of using a means of payment enabling payments 
to be made in connection with the drawdown or repayment of the credit and the 
like.] 
(4) The annual percentage rate of charge shall not be more than five times the 
statutory rate of default interest in leva or in a foreign currency determined by 
decision of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria. 
(5) Contractual terms that go beyond those specified in paragraph 4 shall be 
deemed to be null and void. 
(6) In the case of payments under contracts containing terms declared null 
and void under paragraph 5, amounts paid in excess of the threshold under 
paragraph 4 shall be offset against subsequent payments under the loan. 
Article 20. (1) The rights to which consumers are entitled under this Law may not 
be restricted. Any agreement which excludes or restricts the rights of consumers 
in advance shall be invalid. 
(2) Any waiver of rights to which consumers are entitled under this Law shall be 
ineffective. 
(3) [Impermissibility of the exclusion of the legal protection granted to the 
consumer under this Law or under the legislation of another Member State of the 
EU where the contract is directly related to the territory of the Republic of 
Bulgaria or to that of another Member State or other Member States]. 
Article 21. (1) Any term in a consumer credit agreement which has the object or 
effect of circumventing the requirements of this Law shall be null and void. 
(2) Any term in a consumer credit agreement with a fixed interest rate which 
provides for compensation for the creditor greater than that provided for in 
Article 32(4) shall be null and void. 
Article 22. [Other cases of invalidity] 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-379/21 
 
10  
Article 23. If a consumer credit agreement has been declared invalid, the 
consumer shall repay only the net amount of the credit and shall not owe any 
interest or other costs for the credit. 
Article 24. The provisions of Articles 143 to 148 of the Law on consumer 
protection shall also apply to consumer credit agreements. 
5. Zakon za zashtita na potrebitelite (Law on consumer protection; ‘the 
ZZP’): 
Article 143. (in force until 23 December 2019) An unfair term in a contract 
concluded with a consumer is any agreement harming the consumer which is 
contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance in 
the rights and obligations of the seller or supplier and the consumer arising under 
the contract by: 
1. [limiting the liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a 
consumer or personal injury to the latter resulting from an act or omission of that 
seller or supplier] 
2. excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or 
supplier or any other person in the event of total or partial non-performance or 
inadequate performance of any of the contractual obligations, including the 
exclusion of the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against 
any claim which the consumer may have against him or her; 
3. making the provision of services by the seller or supplier subject to a 
condition whose realisation depends on his or her own will alone; 
4. [permitting only the seller or supplier, but not the consumer, to retain sums 
in the event that the contract is not concluded or performed]; 
5. requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his or her obligation to pay a 
disproportionately high sum in compensation or contractual penalty; 
6. authorising the seller or supplier to exempt himself or herself from his or 
her obligations on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to 
the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for 
services not yet supplied by him or her where it is the seller or supplier himself or 
herself who dissolves the contract; 
7. enabling the seller or supplier to terminate a contract of indeterminate 
duration without notice – except where there are serious grounds for doing so; 
8. providing for a disproportionately short period for the consumer’s tacit 
consent to the renewal of the contract where the consumer does not object; 
TBI BANK 
 
11 
8а. providing that a contract of fixed duration is automatically extended where 
the consumer does not express his or her desire to terminate it, and fixing an 
unreasonably early deadline for the consumer to express this desire not to extend 
the contract; 
9. binding the consumer to terms with which he or she had no opportunity of 
becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract; 
10. [allowing the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally 
on the basis of a reason which is not specified in the contract]; 
11. [allowing the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without reason any 
characteristics of the product]; 
12. [providing for the price to be determined at the time of delivery of the 
product or provision of the service or enabling a seller or supplier to increase the 
price without giving the consumer the right to cancel the contract in such a case]; 
13. [giving the seller or supplier the exclusive right to interpret the terms of the 
contract]; 
14. obliging the consumer to fulfil all his or her obligations where the seller or 
supplier does not perform his or hers; 
15. providing that the seller or supplier may transfer his or her rights and 
obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for 
the consumer, without the latter’s agreement; 
16. [excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or make use 
of other dispute resolution remedies; unduly restricting the means of proof 
available to the consumer or imposing the burden of proof on him or her]; 
17. [limiting the seller’s or supplier’s liability for commitments undertaken by 
his or her agents]; 
18. not giving the consumer the possibility of assessing the economic 
consequences of the conclusion of the contract; 
19. laying down other similar conditions. 
Article 143. (as amended by No 100 of 2019) (1) An unfair term in a contract 
concluded with a consumer is an agreement harming the consumer which is 
contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance in 
the rights and obligations of the seller or supplier and the consumer arising under 
the contract. 
(2) A term is unfair if it: 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-379/21 
 
12  
1. [… wording identical to point 1 of Article 143 prior to the amendment, see 
above]; 
2. [… wording identical to point 2 of Article 143 prior to the amendment, see 
above]; 
3. [… wording identical to point 3 of Article 143 prior to the amendment, see 
above]; 
4. [… wording identical to point 4 of Article 143 prior to the amendment, see 
above]; 
5. [… wording identical to point 5 of Article 143 prior to the amendment, see 
above]; 
6. [… wording identical to point 6 of Article 143 prior to the amendment, see 
above]; 
7. [… wording identical to point 7 of Article 143 prior to the amendment, see 
above]; 
8. [… wording identical to point 8 of Article 143 prior to the amendment, see 
above]; 
9. [providing that a contract of fixed duration is automatically extended where 
the consumer does not express his or her desire to terminate it]; 
10. [previously point 9, see above]; 
11. [previously point 10, see above]; 
12. [previously point 11, see above]; 
13. [previously point 12, see above]; 
14. [previously point 13, see above]; 
15. [previously point 14, see above]; 
16. [previously point 15, see above]; 
17. [previously point 16, see above]; 
18. [previously point 17, see above]; 
19. [previously point 18, see above]; 
20. [previously point 19, see above]. 
TBI BANK 
 
13 
Article 144. (1) [Article 143(2)(7) shall not apply if a supplier of financial 
services reserves the right to terminate unilaterally a contract of indeterminate 
duration without notice where there is a valid reason.] 
(2) [Article 143(2)(11) shall not apply to terms by which: 1. a supplier of 
financial services reserves the right to alter the rate of interest payable by the 
consumer or due to the latter, or the amount of other charges for financial services 
without notice where there is a valid reason; 2. a supplier of financial services 
reserves the right to alter unilaterally the conditions of a contract of indeterminate 
duration] 
(3) [Article 143(2)(7), (11) and (3) shall not apply in relation to: 1. Transactions 
in transferable securities, financial instruments and other products or services 
where the price is linked to fluctuations in a stock exchange quotation or index or 
to the amount of the interest rate on a financial market; 2. Contracts for the 
purchase or sale of foreign currency] 
(4) [Article 143(2)(13) shall not apply to price-indexation terms] 
Article 145. (1) The unfairness of a contractual term in a contract concluded with 
a consumer shall be assessed by taking into account the type 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 from 
which it derives. 
(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 or remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied 
in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain intelligible 
language. 
Article 146. (1) Unfair terms in contracts shall be null and void unless 
individually negotiated. 
(2) to (4) [The provisions specify when terms have not been individually 
negotiated and how that fact is to be proven.] 
(5) The existence of unfair terms in a consumer contract does not render that 
contract null and void if the contract can also continue to exist without those 
terms. 
Article 147. (1) The terms in contracts offered to consumers must be drafted in 
clear and unequivocal language. 
(2) Where there is doubt about the meaning of a particular condition, the 
interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-379/21 
 
14  
[…] 
Article 147a. (1) When a contract is concluded with a consumer, general terms 
and conditions included therein shall be binding on the consumer only if they have 
been made available to him or her and he or she has agreed to them. 
(2) The consumer’s agreement to the general terms and conditions shall be 
certified by his or her signature. 
(3) to (5) [The provisions govern the proof of the transmission of a copy of the 
general terms and conditions signed by the seller or supplier to the consumer and 
the consumer’s agreement thereto]. 
Article 147b. (1) The seller or supplier is obliged to inform the consumer of any 
change to the general terms and conditions included in the concluded contract 
within seven days of the change via the telephone number, email address or 
correspondence address provided by the consumer. 
(2) to (5) [further action to be taken by the parties in the event of a change to the 
general terms and conditions] 
Article 148. (1) The Commission for Consumer Protection: 
1. to 4. [Powers of the Commission for Consumer Protection in respect of unfair 
terms in standard contracts] 
(2) to (4) [Powers of the Commission for Consumer Protection in respect of unfair 
terms in standard contracts] 
6. Interpretative judgment No 4 of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme 
Court of Cassation, Bulgaria), OSGTK [Joint Committee of the Civil and 
Commercial Sections], of 18 June 2014, concerning the following question: ‘2.6. 
Does an application for an enforcement order under Articles 410 and 417 of the 
GPK meet the requirements of Article 410(2) of the GPK, read in conjunction with 
Article 127(1)(4), where the circumstances on which the claim is based have not 
been set out in detail in the application but are apparent from the documents 
attached to the application?’ The court found as follows: ‘According to the 
express provision of Article 410(1) of the GPK, the application must meet the 
requirements of Article 127(1) of the GPK, that is to say, it must contain details of 
the circumstances on which the claim is based. In that sense, a precise 
explanation of the claim in terms of justification and amount is the prerequisite 
for a proper application as a basis for the issuance of an enforcement order. In 
the event that the application does not sufficiently specify the ground on which it 
is founded, it must be rejected; the court ruling on the order is not permitted to 
infer the ground from the documents attached to the application. The reasons for 
this are that the court does not take evidence in the order procedure under 
Article 410 of the GPK (the purpose of the procedure is not to establish the claim 
as such, but merely to verify whether it is disputable) and, consequently, no 
TBI BANK 
 
15 
conclusions as to the existence of the claim or the ground on which it is founded 
can be drawn from the documents attached to the application. However, in the 
case of Article 417 of the GPK, in which the court decides on the basis of the 
document submitted by the applicant, it is permissible for the ground and the 
subject matter of the claim to be determined on the basis of that document, since, 
for the purposes of the law, it is mandatory for that document to be attached to the 
application on the basis of which the order for immediate enforcement is issued, 
whereby the basis for the issuance of the order is the existence of an enforceable 
claim, which is proven by precisely that document.’ 
7. Final decision of the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court; ‘the SGS’) 
concerning a risk assessment term with comparable content and in proceedings 
to which TBI Bank EAD was party: Judgment of 19 February 2020, in which it 
was held that: ‘With regard to the term by which [the payment of a] one-off risk 
assessment fee in the amount of 267.37 leva [BGN] is incorporated into the 
obligations of the borrower, the court is required to examine of its own motion 
and without an objection from the defendant being lodged whether that term is 
null and void, since the applicant bases its claim on that term. On the basis of an 
examination pursuant to Article 10a of the ZPK, which is applicable, the court 
takes the view that the term is null and void. In accordance with Article 10а(1) 
and (2) of the ZPK, the creditor may charge the consumer fees and commissions 
for additional services related to the consumer credit agreement, but not fees or 
commissions for activities related to the drawdown and servicing of the credit. 
Since the risk assessment precedes the conclusion of the contract, and in view of 
Article 16(1) of the ZPK, in accordance with which, before the conclusion of the 
credit agreement, the creditor is to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness on the 
basis of sufficient information, including that obtained from the consumer, or 
since the risk assessment is in fact a core task incumbent on the bank with regard 
to the decision as to whether to authorise the granting of credit, such an 
assessment is not a service, especially given that it is not clearly stated how that 
risk assessment fee is formed and for which specific activity it is owed 
(Article 10а(4) of the ZPK). Therefore, as the risk assessment precedes the 
conclusion of the contract, it concerns the drawdown of the credit, in connection 
with which, however, the creditor is subject to the prohibition under 
Article 10а(2) of the ZPK on the charging of fees or commissions for activities 
related to the drawdown and servicing of the credit. In the light of the above, the 
Chamber finds that the amount of the principal due under the credit agreement is 
BGN 2 228.12, to which the sum of BGN 267.37 for the one-off risk assessment 
fee is not to be added.’ 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The proceedings were initiated on the basis of an application lodged by TBI Bank 
EAD on 18 December 2020. In the application, the applicant stated that the claims 
asserted arise from an extract from its books pursuant to Article 417(2) of the 
GPK, as at 3 December 2020 inclusive, which, it is stated, reflected the current 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-379/21 
 
16  
status of the credit account for a consumer credit agreement concluded with a 
borrower (consumer) on 29 May 2019. The extract outlines that [the] amount of 
the contract is BGN 3 417.32 (approximately EUR 1 708.66), the contract 
commences on 29 May 2019 and ends on 5 November 2020, payments are due on 
the 5th of each month, the balance is due on 5 November 2020, and the contract 
provides for 17 instalments, of which nine have been paid and eight are 
outstanding. It also stated that the total amount arising from the obligations under 
the consumer credit agreement as at 3 December 2020 was: 
1. Principal amount due: BGN 1 471.23; 2. (Remunerative) interest due under 
the contract for the period from 5 April 2020 to 5 November 2020: BGN 136.91; 
3. Compensation for default in respect of the overdue part of the principal for the 
period from 5 April 2020 to 3 December 2020: BGN 180.87; 4. Fees for the 
period from 5 April 2020 to 5 November 2020: BGN 0; Total amount arising from 
the obligations: BGN 1 789.01. It was stated that the compensation for default in 
respect of the principal for the period from 13 March 2020 to 13 May 2020 was in 
accordance with Article 6 of the Zakon za merkite i deystviata po vreme na 
izvanrednoto polozhenie (Law on measures and actions during the state of 
emergency,) and that no statutory interest had been charged for that period. 
2 Attached to the application was a consumer credit agreement dated 29 May 2019, 
under which TBI Bank EAD granted a consumer loan for general use to a 
consumer. Article 7 of the agreement sets out the general framework of the 
agreement as follows: Article 7.1 Loan amount: BGN 2 300; Total amount of the 
insurance premium: BGN 260.64; BANK Kombo zhivot: BGN 129.03; BANK 
Kombo Bezrabotitsa: BGN 131.61; Total amount of the loan: BGN 2 867.92; 
‘One-off risk assessment fee in figures: BGN 307.28 [in words: …]. The one-off 
risk assessment fee due on the date on which the credit agreement is signed shall 
be pre-financed by the creditor and repaid by the consumer by means of the 
monthly instalments due in accordance with the repayment schedule and taking 
into account his or her wishes as expressed in the application.' Article 11.2. of the 
agreement sets out the repayment schedule for the contract, listing due dates from 
5 July 2019 to 5 November 2020, whereby the total amount of each of the first 17 
instalments is BGN 201.02 and the total amount of the 18th instalment is 
BGN 201. 
3 By order of 6 January 2021, the court – taking into account its duty arising from 
Article 411(2)(3) of the GPK and the requirement introduced by the case-law of 
the Court of Justice of the European Union to assess, of its own motion, the 
unfairness of a term where it has available to it the factual elements necessary for 
that task (С-147/16, C-243/08) – found that the documents submitted in the case 
allowed the conclusion to be drawn that Article 7.1. of the agreement was likely to 
be unfair. That clause provides for the ‘one-off risk assessment fee in the amount 
of BGN 307.28’, being a risk assessment fee due on the date on which the credit 
agreement is signed, pre-financed by the creditor and repayable by the consumer 
by means of the monthly instalments owed by him or her. The court held that 
there are reasonable grounds to suspect that terms in consumer credit agreements 
TBI BANK 
 
17 
providing for additional fees for various ancillary services or for the non-
performance of various main or ancillary obligations under the credit agreement 
are unfair and are intended solely to circumvent the mandatory provisions of 
Article 19, Article 10a, Article 22 and Article 33 of the ZPK. Taking into account 
the nature of the legal relationship and the type of terms, the court took the view 
that those terms significantly jeopardised consumer rights and that, therefore, in 
order to ensure the effective protection of consumers and to comply with the 
fundamental principle of civil procedure, enforcement orders should not be issued 
in respect of such claims. With regard to the term so agreed, the court held that 
there were reasonable grounds to suspect that it was unfair because it was 
intended to derogate from the provisions of Chapter 4 [of the ZPK] concerning the 
assessment of the consumer’s creditworthiness, which the creditor was required to 
carry out prior to the conclusion of the consumer credit agreement, a circumstance 
that led to the term being null and void owing to the circumvention of a law. For 
that reason, claims arising from such terms cannot come under the category of 
uncontested claims, as they significantly jeopardise consumer rights and therefore 
cannot be enforced by way of the order for payment procedure. The court then 
concluded as follows: Since the amount formed part of the principal because it 
was stated that it was to be repaid by means of the monthly instalments due in 
accordance with the repayment schedule, which specified the total amount of the 
instalments due (thus suggesting that they each comprised part of the fee, the 
principal and the interest), without stating the components of those instalments – 
whereby the extract at issue, provided for in Article 417(2) of the GPK, also did 
not mention the risk assessment fee as a component due under the contract – that 
‘fee’ was capitalised (added as a component) within the principal and was 
correspondingly subject to interest under the contract and default interest; 
therefore, and in view of the information regarding the payments made, the court 
held that it was not clear what part of the principal had not been repaid, whereby, 
on that basis, the claims for interest should also be rejected, as it was unclear how 
they had been calculated and whether they were asserted in respect of a claim 
based on an unfair term. On the basis of that reasoning, the court dismissed the 
application in its entirety by the order cited. 
4 On 2 February 2021, the applicant TBI Bank EAD filed an appeal against the 
order of the Sofiyski rayonen sad (District Court, Sofia, ‘the SRS’) of 6 January 
2021, following which proceedings were instituted before the SGS, which ruled 
by Order of 7 June 2021 that the appeal was well founded. It held that the 
amendments to the GPK (Darzhaven vestnik (State Gazette; ‘DV’) No 100/2019) 
imposed on the court seised of an application for an enforcement order the duty to 
examine of its own motion the unfairness of terms in consumer contracts 
(Article 7(3) of the GPK), such as the contract at issue in the present case. The 
court also stated that the amendments are in line with the requirements of the 
Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 18 February 2016 in 
Case C-49/14, in which it was expressly stated that the national procedural system 
must allow the court, during the order for payment proceedings or the 
enforcement proceedings concerning an order for payment, to check of its own 
motion whether terms of the contract concerned are unfair. Accordingly, it was 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-379/21 
 
18  
held in operative part 1 of the judgment in Case C-472/11 that the national court 
which has found of its own motion that a contractual term is unfair is not obliged, 
in order to be able to draw the consequences arising from that finding, to wait for 
the consumer, who has been informed of his rights, to submit a statement 
requesting that that term be declared invalid. In operative part 2 of the judgment in 
Case С-243/08, it was held that the national court is required to examine, of its 
own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the 
legal and factual elements necessary for that task. 
5 The appellate court held that the claims that were the subject of the application 
were based on an extract from the bank’s books concerning a consumer loan, a 
document which is referred to in Article 417(2) of the GPK as a basis for issuing 
an order for immediate enforcement. The appellate court cites the provisions of 
Article 417(2) of the GPK, which provides for the issuance of an enforcement 
order if the claim, regardless of its amount, is based upon an accounting document 
or excerpt from the books establishing claims of organs of the State, 
municipalities, and banks. Those conditions for the issuance of an order for 
immediate enforcement apply only to the entities specified, that is to say, the 
claim evidenced by the documents under Article 417(2) must arise from a direct 
legal relationship between the entities specified and the debtor. In the present case, 
attached to the application is an extract from the books of the bank, drawn up, 
duly signed and provided with the stamp of the bank by an official of the bank, 
which, together with the attached bank loan agreement, establish the claim. The 
extract complies with the requirements in … Article 60(2) of the Zakon za 
kreditnite institutsii (Bulgarian Law on credit institutions). In accordance with that 
provision, the extract from the books is to contain at least the following 
information: 1. the number of instalments not repaid on the agreed due dates or 
only partially repaid and the total amount overdue; 2. the total amount of the 
outstanding part of the total amount due from the consumer, including the 
principal and unpaid interest owed under the contract; 3. the amount of 
compensation for default in respect of overdue payments. The extract submitted 
fulfils the abovementioned requirements and is therefore a formally valid 
document on the basis of which an order for immediate enforcement can be 
issued. 
6 Next, the appellate court stated that, since the court was required under 
Article 418(2) of the GPK to verify the formal validity of the document, that is to 
say, to assess whether it evidences the existence of the right asserted, it is limited 
to the information directly resulting from the document under Article 417 of the 
GPK due to the formal probative value by which that document evidences the 
enforceable right, and it may not have recourse to information beyond the 
document, with the exception of that relating to the issue of whether the debt has 
fallen due, as follows from Article 418(3) of the GPK. For that reason, the court 
found that the dispute as to whether, in what amount and on what basis the claim 
for the principal existed, whether the fee pursuant to Article 7.1 of the agreement 
was capitalised within the principal, whether it bore interest and how the 
payments under the loan were set off in relation to the amount of the principal and 
TBI BANK 
 
19 
the fee, was substantive in nature and subject to examination in proceedings under 
Article 422 of the GPK, in so far as an objection is raised. On the basis of the 
foregoing, the appellate court ruled that the conditions laid down in Article 418 of 
the GPK for the ordering of immediate enforcement and the issuing of a writ of 
enforcement against the debtor in respect of the creditor’s claims set out in the 
application were met, with the result that the order dismissing the application for 
an enforcement order in respect of the sums [repetition of the sums – see above, 
points 1.-3. of paragraph 1], plus compensation for default in the form of interest 
charged at the statutory rate from the date on which the application was lodged 
pursuant to Article 417 of the GPK until the final settlement of the claim, must be 
annulled and the proceedings must be referred back to the SRS for the issuance of 
an order for immediate enforcement pursuant to Article 417 of the GPK and with 
regard to the corresponding costs of the order for payment procedure. On those 
grounds, the SGS annulled the order of the SRS of 6 January 2021 and instead 
ordered as follows: ‘IT IS ORDERED that an order for immediate enforcement be 
issued in favour of the applicant TBI Bank EAD and against the debtor 
(consumer) in accordance with Article 417 of the GPK in respect of the sums 
[repetition of the sums – see above, points 1.-3. of paragraph 1], plus 
compensation for default in the form of interest charged at the statutory rate from 
the date on which the application was lodged pursuant to Article 417 of the GPK 
until the final settlement of the claim and payment of the costs of the proceedings, 
and that a writ of enforcement be issued in respect of the claims specified. THE 
CASE IS REFFERED BACK to the SRS for the purposes of issuing an order for 
immediate enforcement and a writ of enforcement. The present order is not open 
to appeal.’ 
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 The applicant seeks the issuance of an order for immediate enforcement in respect 
of a pecuniary obligation arising from a consumer credit agreement, on the basis 
of a document pursuant to Article 417(2) of the GPK. Under Bulgarian law, the 
debtor is not a party to the proceedings until the enforcement order is issued. The 
debtor (consumer) has therefore not taken a position on the matter. The reasoning 
of the court of first instance and the appellate court differs as to how the court 
must discharge its duty not to allow the consequences of unfair terms to 
materialise, in particular in the light of the impossibility of determining the 
amount of the one-off risk assessment fee (which is based on an unfair term), 
likely included as a component of the principal. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
8 The following is clear from the facts of the present case: There is an application 
for the issuance of an order for immediate enforcement on the basis of a 
document – an extract from the books of a bank, to which a consumer credit 
agreement was attached – pursuant to Article 417(2) of the GPK; in accordance 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-379/21 
 
20  
with domestic law, that procedure is unilateral until the order for payment and the 
writ of enforcement based on it are issued, and the debtor learns of those when 
enforcement proceedings in respect of the claims are initiated. The application 
lodged is for the issuance of an order for the payment (court order by which the 
court orders the debtor to pay the applicant the amounts of the claims 
acknowledged by the court) of monetary claims arising from a consumer credit 
agreement. The court of first instance hearing the case stated that it had reasonable 
grounds to suspect that part of the claim was based on unfair terms that increased 
the value of the claims arising from the loan, including components of the 
principal, with the result that, despite the existence of information regarding 
payment, it is not possible to determine the specific amount of the remaining 
claims that are not based on unfair terms; according to the applicant, the debtor 
had made some payments (the extract shows that a total of nine repayment 
instalments had been paid). The credit agreement expressly states that the one-off 
risk assessment fee is to be repaid by the consumer by means of the monthly 
instalments due in accordance with the repayment schedule, in which those 
instalments are specified without being broken down by component (principal, 
interest and fee). This makes it impossible for the court to verify, with regard to 
the payments made, whether the consumer has already paid part of the fee based 
on the unfair term or whether, if he or she pays the principal under the loan in the 
amount claimed, he or she might not pay more than what would have been paid 
had the contract not contained the unfair term. In such a case, the court would be 
allowing obligations arising from an unfair term to be discharged by the consumer 
in breach of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC. 
9 The second instance proceeded on the assumption that, irrespective of the court’s 
duty to assess the unfairness of terms, the extract from the books at issue is a 
formally valid document on the basis of which an order for immediate 
enforcement may be issued, and since Article 418(2) of the GPK requires the 
court to verify only the formal validity of the document, that is to say, to assess 
whether it evidences the existence of the right asserted, the court is limited to the 
information directly resulting from the document under Article 417 of the GPK, 
due to the formal probative value by which that document evidences the 
enforceable right, and it may not have recourse to information beyond the 
document, with the exception of that relating to the issue of whether the debt has 
fallen due, as follows from Article 418(3) of the GPK. For that reason, the 
reviewing court found that the dispute as to whether, in what amount and on what 
basis the claim for the principal existed, whether the fee pursuant to Article 7.1 of 
the agreement was capitalised within the principal, whether it bore interest and 
how the payments under the loan were set off in relation to the amount of the 
principal and the fee, is substantive in nature and subject to examination in 
proceedings under Article 422 of the GPK, in so far as an objection is raised by 
the consumer. 
10 Under Article 278(3) of the GPK, an order made on appeal is binding on the lower 
court. Notwithstanding, the adjudicating Chamber takes the view that it must stay 
the proceedings and request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice, 
TBI BANK 
 
21 
including in view of the possibility that the directions of the appellate court are 
contrary to EU law (this also being in line with the answer to the first question in 
Case C-173/09: ‘European Union law precludes a national court which is called 
upon to decide a case referred back to it by a higher court hearing an appeal from 
being bound, in accordance with national procedural law, by legal rulings of the 
higher court, if it considers, having regard to the interpretation which it has 
sought from the Court, that those rulings are inconsistent with European Union 
law’), both in so far as the appellate court did not take a position on the unfairness 
of the term at issue, on the basis of which the claim is asserted in unilateral 
proceedings against a consumer, and in so far as it ordered, as regards the binding 
directions, that the lower court issue an immediately enforceable court decision 
containing amounts based on a term which is likely to be unfair. 
11 If it is to be assumed that the term at issue is unfair with regard to the risk 
assessment fee (which the national court is obliged to do in view of the judgment 
in Case С-243/08), the fee would be added to the total amount of the claim, in 
respect of which the court would issue an order for immediate enforcement, on the 
basis of which a writ of enforcement would be issued, on the basis of which, in 
turn, enforcement proceedings for the recovery of the claims can be initiated 
against the debtor (consumer), who, from that point in time, can lodge an 
objection within the period prescribed in Article 414(2) of the GPK. If it is to be 
assumed that that fee is a component of the principal (since it is not specified as a 
separate component in the extract at issue), it would be subject also to 
remunerative interest and compensation for default at the statutory rate of interest, 
thereby further burdening the consumer. If it is to be assumed that the court is to 
assess the unfairness of terms of its own motion and, if they are found to be unfair, 
must reject the application in its entirety, since, in the present proceedings, it is 
not possible to establish the specific amount of the claims based on non-abusive 
terms by means of an expert opinion, the applicant has the possibility, under 
Article 415(1)(3) of the GPK, to bring an action in ordinary proceedings in order 
to establish the amount of the claims asserted without suffering further negative 
consequences. … If it is to be assumed that the court is to assess the unfairness of 
terms of its own motion and, if they are found to be unfair, must reject the 
application only in part and not in its entirety, and if it is to be assumed, by 
analogy to Article 19(6) of the ZPK, that the payments from the unfair terms are 
to be set off against the unpaid components of the credit agreement (principal and 
interest), that is to say, set-off is to take place ex officio where the contractual 
term on the basis of which the consumer has made a payment is found to be 
unfair, it would not be necessary, when a court order for payment is issued, for the 
consumer to raise an objection under Article 414 of the GPK, or for legal 
proceedings to be conducted in which he or she could exercise his or her right of 
set-off. 
12 In the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union cited in 
paragraph 42 * (Case С-243/08), the Court ruled ‘that an unfair contract term is 
 
* Translator’s note: paragraph 45 of the full-length order for reference. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-379/21 
 
22  
not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary, in that regard, for that 
consumer to have successfully contested the validity of such a term beforehand’, 
and: ‘The national court is required to examine, of its own motion, the unfairness 
of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements 
necessary for that task. Where it considers such a term to be unfair, it must not 
apply it, except if the consumer opposes that non-application.’ 
13 The referring court considers that it is important to establish whether, in 
proceedings to which the consumer is not party until a court decision is issued by 
which immediate enforcement is ordered and, on the basis of that decision, a writ 
of enforcement is issued, the national court – where it has grounds for suspicion, 
examines the unfair nature of a contractual term of its own motion and has 
available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task – must refuse 
altogether to issue a court decision ordering immediate enforcement (in casu, an 
order for immediate enforcement pursuant to Article 417 of the GPK) in the light 
of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, in so far as the specific amount of the 
claim cannot be determined. In that respect, it must also be taken into account 
that, also in the event that the debts owed have been incorrectly calculated, the 
consumer may request, in accordance with Article 420(2)(3) of the GPK, that 
immediate enforcement granted by the court be suspended. However, that 
possibility requires that the consumer expressly requests the suspension of 
enforcement; until the court has ruled, enforcement continues to be pursued 
against him or her. 
14 If EU law does not require the national court to refuse to issue an order for 
immediate enforcement altogether, national law allows it to refuse to issue a court 
decision ordering immediate payment (in casu, an order for immediate 
enforcement pursuant to Article 417 of the GPK) only in part, in relation to the 
specific contractual term, whereby in that case also, in accordance with the 
judgment in Case С-243/08, the court must take into account, of its own motion, 
the consequences of the unfairness of the term, in so far as it has available to it 
information about payments based on that term. In those circumstances, the 
question arises as to whether the court is bound by the directions of a higher court 
which instructs that a court decision ordering immediate enforcement (in casu, an 
order for immediate enforcement pursuant to Article 417 of the GPK) be issued, in 
essence giving effect to the unfair term and thereby disregarding the consequences 
of the unfairness of the term in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive 
93/13/EEC. 
15 The court takes the view that the answer to the questions is related to ensuring 
effective remedies for the consumer. This follows from the fact that, under 
national law, the court seised of an application for an order for immediate 
enforcement on the basis of a document pursuant to Article 417 of the GPK, 
notwithstanding the duty incumbent on it to examine the unfairness of terms in a 
consumer contract, where it finds that the contract does contain such terms which 
TBI BANK 
 
23 
have a pecuniary effect on the total claim asserted against the consumer, must † 
the court in such a case – if it is required under Article 6(1) of Directive 
93/13/EEC to disapply such a term of its own motion on the ground of suspected 
unfairness vis-à-vis a consumer – disregard the consequences of the unfairness of 
the terms in proceedings to which the debtor is not party and in which it is not 
possible to determine the specific amount of the remaining claims based on non-
abusive terms by means of an expert opinion, or does Article 6(1) of Directive 
93/13/EEC require the court to refuse altogether to issue a court decision ordering 
immediate enforcement and a writ of enforcement on the basis of which enforced 
recovery of the sums from a consumer can then be initiated, or does that provision 
require the court to refuse to issue a court decision in part, and must the court take 
into account the consequences of the unfairness of a term of its own motion where 
it has available to it information about a payment made by the consumer on the 
basis of the unfair term, whereby, under national law, the application mutatis 
mutandis of Article 19(6) of the ZPK, read in conjunction with Article 76(2) of 
the ZZD, is permissible. 
16 There is an interest in the request for interpretation, as the existing case-law of the 
Court of Justice of the European Union does not provide answers to the specific 
questions raised as to the duties of the national court in the order for payment 
procedure in the case where only part of the claims are found not to be based on 
unfair terms. Bulgarian law does in fact allow for several courses of action in such 
cases, but the appellate court prefers those involving a purely formal review. It is 
not clearly apparent from the existing case-law of the Court of Justice cited above 
whether that interpretation covers the matters at hand. For these reasons, the 
referring court finds it necessary to request a ruling from the Court of Justice on 
the questions set out in this order for reference and to stay the main proceedings 
on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. 
 
† Translator’s note: the original order for reference switches to a question at this point.