Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2021:443
Date: 2021-06-03
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Anonymised version 
Translation C-280/20 — 1 
Case C-280/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
25 June 2020 
Referring court: 
Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria)  
Date of the decision to refer: 
27 May 2020 
Applicant: 
ZN 
Defendant: 
Generalno konsulstvo (General Consulate) of the Republic of 
Bulgaria in the City of Valencia, Kingdom of Spain  
  
ORDER 
… [...] 
Sofia, 27 May 2020 
The SOFIYSKI RAYONEN SAD (District Court, Sofia) [...] 
[...] took the following matters into consideration in reaching its decision: 
1. The procedure is based on the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. 
2. A person who claims to be a worker has brought proceedings against the 
Bulgarian Embassy in Valencia, Kingdom of Spain. In dispute is the issue of 
whether the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on international 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 5. 2020 — CASE C-280/20 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
jurisdiction apply to disputes between nationals of a Member State and the 
consular service of that Member State in the European Union. 
1.  Parties to the proceedings: 
3. 1.1. Applicant: 
4. ZN, a Bulgarian national with an address in Sofia 
5. [...] 
6. 1.2. Defendant: 
7. Generalno konsulstvo (General Consulate) of the Republic of Bulgaria in the City 
of Valencia, Kingdom of Spain 
8. [...] 
2.  Forms of order sought by the parties: 
9. The applicant is seeking payment of financial remuneration in respect of unused 
paid annual leave to which she claims to be entitled under the labour law of the 
Republic of Bulgaria. She contends that she did not take the 120 days’ paid annual 
leave to which she was entitled in the four years from 2 January 2013 to 
31 December 2016 (30 days per year). 
10. As her work at the General Consulate in Valencia was carried out under a contract 
governed by general civil law which was not expressly designated as a contract of 
employment, the applicant is also seeking judgment finding that she was also 
party to a contract of employment. She contends that, on the basis of the general 
principle of Bulgarian procedural law under which anyone demonstrating a 
legitimate interest can seek judgment finding that a legal relationship exists, she 
also has a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding to that effect [Or. 2]. 
3.  National law: 
11. 3.1. Kodeks na truda (Bulgarian Employment Code; ‘the KT’ [...]). 
Subject matter and objective 
12. Article 1. [...] (1) This law governs the employment relationship between a 
worker and an employer and all directly related legal relations. 
13. (2) [...] Legal relations in connection with the provision of work shall be regulated 
exclusively as an employment relationship. 
Paid basic and additional annual leave 
GENERAL CONSULATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
14. Article 155. [...] (1) [...] Every worker shall be entitled to paid annual leave. 
15. (2) [...] A worker who starts a new job may take his paid annual leave as soon as 
he has been employed for a minimum of eight months. 
16. (3) [...] If the employment relationship is terminated before the minimum period 
of employment of eight months has been completed, the worker shall be entitled 
to financial remuneration in lieu of unused paid annual leave calculated in 
accordance with Article 224(1). 
17. (4) [...] The minimum basic paid annual leave shall be 20 working days. 
18. (5) [...] Certain groups of workers shall be entitled to extended paid annual leave, 
depending on their particular type of work, which includes the leave referred to in 
paragraph (4). The Ministerski savet (Council of Ministers) shall specify those 
groups of workers and their minimum paid annual leave. 
Remuneration 
19. Article 177. (1) [...] The employer shall pay the worker remuneration for the 
duration of the paid annual leave calculated on the basis of the average daily gross 
salary paid by that employer in the calendar month preceding the leave in which 
the worker worked a minimum of 10 working days. 
20. (2) [...] If the worker did not work a minimum of 10 working days for that 
employer in any month, the remuneration referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
based on the basic salary agreed in the contract of employment and any permanent 
additional remuneration for work. [Or. 3] 
Prohibition of financial remuneration in lieu 
21. Article 178. The period of paid annual leave may not be replaced by financial 
remuneration, except where the employment relationship has been terminated. 
Financial remuneration in lieu of unused paid annual leave 
22. Article 224. (1) [...] (the part that reads ‘for the current calendar year in proportion 
to the time recognised as time worked and for leave not taken and carried forward 
in accordance with Article 176’ held to be unconstitutional [...]) At the end of the 
employment relationship, the worker shall be entitled to financial remuneration 
for paid annual leave not taken for the current calendar year in proportion to the 
time recognised as time worked and for leave not taken and carried forward in 
accordance with Article 176, provided that the leave entitlement has not lapsed. 
23. (2) [...] The financial remuneration referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be 
calculated in accordance with Article 177 at the time at which the employment 
relationship ends. 
Definition 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 5. 2020 — CASE C-280/20 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
24. Article 357. (1) [...] ‘Labour dispute’ means a legal dispute between a worker and 
an employer concerning the accrual, existence, performance and termination of an 
employment relationship or a legal dispute concerning the application of 
collective agreements and the determination of working time. 
Jurisdiction in respect of labour disputes concerning Bulgarian workers 
abroad 
25. Article 362. [...] The courts of Sofia shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate in labour 
disputes between workers who are Bulgarian nationals working abroad and 
Bulgarian employers abroad. If the worker is the defendant, the courts in his place 
of residence in Bulgaria shall have jurisdiction. 
Definitions 
26. Paragraph 1. For the purposes of this Law: 
27. 1. [...] ‘Employer’ means any natural person, legal person or entity dependent 
thereon, together with any other organisationally and economically separate entity 
(an undertaking, establishment, organisation, cooperative, firm, venue, household, 
company or suchlike) which independently engages staff in the context of an 
employment relationship, including staff engaged for the purposes of performing 
homework or telework and their provision for performance of work within an 
undertaking using hire staff. 
28. 3.2. Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure) ([...]): 
[Or. 4] 
Types of proceedings 
29. Article 124. (1) Anyone with a legitimate interest can bring proceedings in order 
to enforce an infringed right or to obtain judgment finding that a legal relationship 
or a right does or does not exist. 
30. 3.3. Zakon za diplomaticheskata sluzhba (Law on the Diplomatic 
Service) [...]: 
Representation abroad. Opening and closure 
31. Article 21. (1) [...] The representation abroad of the Republic of Bulgaria is a 
territorial structural unit of the Ministerstvo na vanshnite raboti (Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs) that performs diplomatic and/or consular activities in another 
State or in international government organisations. 
32. (2) Representations abroad are: 
33. 1. Embassies; 
GENERAL CONSULATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
34. 2. Permanent representations and permanent delegations to international 
government organisations; 
35. 3. General consulates, consulates, vice-consulates and consular agencies; 
36. 4. Diplomatic offices and liaison offices; 
37. 5. Special missions within the meaning of the Convention on Special Missions 
adopted on 8 December 1969 [...] by the United Nations General Assembly. 
38. (3) Representations abroad shall be opened, classified by type and closed by the 
Council of Ministers on the recommendation of the Ministar na vanshnite raboti 
(Minister for Foreign Affairs). 
Structure and staffing 
39. Article 22. (1) A representation abroad shall comprise a head, members of the 
diplomatic staff, members of the administrative and technical staff and members 
of the service staff within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic 
Relations done at Vienna on 18 April 1961 [...], the Vienna Convention on 
Consular Relations done at Vienna on 24 April 1963 [...] and the Convention on 
Special Missions. 
40. (2) Offices may be established in a representation abroad by type, function and 
staffing. 
4. Facts 
41. The purpose of the proceedings is to examine the international jurisdiction of the 
court, which is determined on the basis of the parties’ submissions, as set out in 
the application and in the defence. 
42. On 30 April 2019, the applicant, ZN, who is a Bulgarian national, lodged two 
applications against the General Consulate of the Republic of Bulgaria in 
Valencia, Spain, in a subjective joinder of claims. 
43. She contends that, [Or. 5] in the period from 2 January 2013 to 29 June 2017, she 
entered into contracts with the General Consulate of the Republic of Bulgaria in 
Valencia under which she provided personal services at work in connection with 
the receipt and administration of documents in matters brought before the 
Consulate by Bulgarian nationals. The applicant argues that, under the Zakon za 
diplomaticheskata sluzhba (Law on the Diplomatic Service), the representations 
abroad of the Republic of Bulgaria are not allowed to employ anyone to provide 
services or exercise activities other than under a contract of employment. She 
further contends that, in terms of content, the contracts fulfilled the requirements 
of Bulgarian law applicable to contracts of employment. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 5. 2020 — CASE C-280/20 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
44. By her application and supplementary pleadings of 12 June 2019 and 25 July 
2019, the applicant contends that she received no financial remuneration for paid 
annual leave not taken in the four-year period from 2013 to 2016 inclusive, even 
though her legal relationship should have been regulated as an employment 
relationship and every worker with a contract of employment is entitled, on 
termination of the employment relationship, to leave or financial remuneration in 
lieu of annual leave not taken. 
45. The applicant requests, on the basis of the facts submitted, that her legal 
relationship with the General Consulate in Valencia, Spain, be recognised as an 
employment relationship and that the Consulate be ordered to pay her financial 
remuneration of EUR 3 000 for annual leave not taken in that four-year period. 
46. The contracts between the applicant and the General Consulate annexed to the 
application expressly provide that Bulgarian law is to apply in respect of matters 
not regulated in those contracts. 
47. In its defence, the defendant contends that, in this dispute, it is the courts in the 
applicant’s place of work, that is, in the Kingdom of Spain, and not the Bulgarian 
courts, that have jurisdiction to adjudicate. 
5. Connection with EU law and the need for interpretation: 
48. A dispute is pending before the court which, under Bulgarian law, has to be 
classed as an individual labour dispute. Bulgarian law expressly provides that 
contracts between a Bulgarian employer abroad and a worker who is a Bulgarian 
national come under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian courts (Article 362 of the 
KT). 
49. The European Union adopted Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and 
the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 
(‘the Brussels I recast Regulation’) for the purpose of determining international 
jurisdiction in civil matters, including labour disputes. According to Article 1 of 
the Brussels I recast Regulation, it applies in all civil and commercial matters 
pending before the courts of the Member States, with the exception of those 
expressly listed in Article 1(2) of the Regulation. The Brussels I recast Regulation 
does not provide for [Or. 6] any exemptions for disputes involving diplomatic or 
consular representatives. According to Article 5(1) of the Brussels I recast 
Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State may be sued only in the courts 
of their Member State of domicile or by virtue of the specific jurisdictional rules 
set out in the Regulation. 
50. At the same time, as is apparent from recital (3) thereof, the Brussels I recast 
Regulation was adopted so that the European Union can ‘adopt measures relating 
to judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications’. There is 
no such cross-border implication in the present case. Rather, this dispute is 
between a Bulgarian worker and a Bulgarian employer, the legal relationship has a 
GENERAL CONSULATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
close connection to Bulgaria and the applicant clearly wants her case to be dealt 
with in a Bulgarian court. Furthermore, the defendant is a branch of a Bulgarian 
authority and, although it is located in the sovereign territory of another Member 
State, all its activities concern services to nationals of the Republic of Bulgaria. 
51. For those reasons, the referring court has doubts as to whether it has been seised 
of a dispute with a ‘cross-border implication’ and finds that the Regulation is to be 
interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to disputes between the nationals of a 
Member State and its consular representations abroad, even where such an 
exception is not expressly provided for. Therefore, the provisions of the 
Regulation require interpretation and the referring court considers it appropriate to 
seek a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice on the following 
6. Question: 
52. Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, in conjunction with recital (3) 
thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the regulation applies for the purpose of 
determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State to 
adjudicate in a dispute between a worker from that Member State and the consular 
service of that Member State in the sovereign territory of another Member State, 
or should those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the national 
jurisdictional rules of the Member State of which both parties are nationals apply 
to such a dispute? 
53. … [...] Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, the Sofiyski rayonen 
sad (District Court, Sofia), [...] 
MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 
54. The proceedings are stayed [...]. 
55. The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling: 
56. Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, in conjunction with recital (3) 
thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the regulation applies for the purpose of 
determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State [Or. 7] 
to adjudicate in a dispute between a worker from that Member State and the 
consular service of that Member State in the sovereign territory of another 
Member State, or should those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the 
national jurisdictional rules of the Member State of which both parties are 
nationals apply to such a dispute? 
[...]