Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:754
Date: 2025-10-06
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-549/24 – 1 
Case C-549/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
14 August 2024 
Referring court: 
Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
30 July 2024 
Applicant: 
BR 
Defendant: 
Direktor na Natsionalno tol upravlenie, Agentsia ‘Patna 
infrastruktura’ 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The main proceedings have their origin in an action brought by BR against a letter 
of 28 September 2023 sent to him by the defendant in connection with a road 
traffic offence, namely driving on the toll road network without paying the 
vignette fee. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Request under Article 267 TFEU for an interpretation of Article 7a(1) and (3) of 
Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2022/362, and of Articles 41 (in 
conjunction with Article 24 of Directive 2019/520), 47, 48 and 49 of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-549/24 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Is a national provision such as that laid down in the second sentence of 
Article 10a(1) of the Zakon za patishtata (Law on Roads), according to which, 
‘depending on their period of validity, vignettes shall be available in annual, 
quarterly, monthly, weekly or weekend versions, and shall be valid from the day 
indicated as the first day of validity at the time of payment’, permissible under 
Article 7a(1) and (3) of Directive EU 2022/362 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 24 February 2022 amending Directives 1999/62/EC, 1999/37/EC 
and (EU) 2019/520, as regards the charging of vehicles for the use of certain 
infrastructures? 
2. Is a national provision such as the one at issue in national law, which does 
not provide that the authority or the person that levies the toll must fulfil its 
obligations, under Article 24 of, and Annex II to, Directive (EU) 2019/520 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the interoperability 
of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of 
information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union, to send a person who has 
used the road network without paying the prescribed toll an information letter 
containing the information referred to in Article 24 of, and Annex II to, Directive 
(EU) 2019/520 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and to give that 
that person the opportunity to state the reasons for failing to pay the toll, 
permissible in the light of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union, and is the national authority’s practice of not responding to 
requests it receives from road users to have the redress charge imposed on them 
revoked, permissible? 
3. Is a national provision such as that contained in Articles 189f and 189g of 
the Zakon za dvizhenie po patishtata (Law on Road Traffic, ‘the ZDvP’), 
according to which the owner or the driver of a vehicle who pays the redress 
charge for a journey which the administrative authority finds him or her to have 
made without having paid the corresponding toll can bring neither an appeal 
before the administrative authority nor an action before the courts against the 
redress charge imposed on him or her, permissible in the light of the first and 
second sentences of Article 47 in conjunction with Article 48 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union? 
4. Is a national provision according to which the annual vignette costs 87 leva 
(BGN) (EUR 45), the redress charge for driving [on the toll road network] without 
first having paid the vignette fee is levied at a flat rate of BGN 70 (EUR 36) and 
the fine [for that offence] (under Article 179(3) of the ZDvP) is BGN 300, the 
amounts of the redress charge and the fine having been determined without regard 
to the amount not paid for the toll, the duration of the offence, the financial 
situation of the vehicle owner or the offender or the quality of the services 
provided by the Roads Administration (such as, for example, the quality of the 
road surface, the passability of the road, the condition of the road markings, and 
DIREKTOR NA NATSIONALNO TOL UPRAVLENIE 
 
3 
so on), permissible in the light of Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Directive (EU) 2019/520 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
19 March 2019, recital 6, Article 24 and Annex II 
Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 
1999, as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 17 May 2006 and Directive (EU) 2022/362 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 24 February 2022 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Articles 41, 
47, 48 and 49(3) 
Provisions of national law relied on  
Zakon za patishtata (Law on Roads, ‘the ZP’), Articles 9, 10, 10а, 56 and the 
Additional Provisions, in particular: 
Article 10 (1) For use of the toll road network, a mixed system of fees for the 
various vehicle categories and fees based on time and distance shall be introduced: 
1. Fee for using the toll road network – vignette fee for road vehicles within the 
meaning of Article 10a(7); payment of the vignette fee shall allow a road vehicle 
to be driven on the toll road network for a specified period of time; 
… 
(2) Where it is found that a road vehicle driver has used the toll road network 
without having paid the toll applicable under paragraph 1 for the road vehicle in 
question, the driver of the vehicle, its owner or a third party may pay a redress 
charge and shall in that event be exempt from liability under administrative 
criminal law. … 
Article 10a (1) The amount of the vignette fee shall vary according to the period 
of validity of the vignette paid for. Depending on their period of validity, vignettes 
shall be available in annual, quarterly, monthly, weekly or weekend versions, and 
shall be valid from the day indicated as the first day of validity at the time of 
payment. The period of validity of vignettes shall be determined by [regulation]. 
… 
(7) The following road vehicles having a technically permissible total mass of 
up to and including 3.5 tonnes shall be subject to a toll: 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-549/24 
 
4  
1. motor vehicles having at least four wheels for the carriage of passengers; … 
Zakon za dvizhenie po patishtata (Law on Road Traffic), Articles 102, 139, 140, 
167а, 171, 179, 189f, 189g and 189h, in particular: 
Article 139 … (6) The driver of a road vehicle must pay the toll referred to in 
Article 10(1), point 1, of the Law on Roads before driving on a road forming part 
of the toll road network if the road vehicle is in a category subject to a toll, unless 
the toll has been paid by a third party. 
Article 167a … (3) Whenever an offence under Article 179(3) to (3c) is found to 
have been committed, the electronic toll system referred to in Article 10(1) of the 
Law on Roads shall generate a report which shall automatically be accompanied 
by static recordings in the form of images and/or dynamic recordings in the form 
of video clips. Together with the attached static recordings in the form of images 
and/or dynamic recordings in the form of video clips, that report shall constitute 
proof of the circumstances reproduced therein vis-à-vis the road vehicle, its 
registration number, the date, time and place of driving on the section of road 
forming part of the toll road network and the location of the system’s technical 
device. 
(4) The Agentsia ‘Patna infrastruktura’ (‘Road infrastructure’ Agency) shall 
establish and maintain an information system in which the reports referred to in 
paragraph 3 and electronic notices of fines for offences under Article 179(3) to 
(3c) shall be created and stored … 
(5) [The competent authorities] shall have access to the electronic toll system 
referred to in paragraph 3 and to the electronic information system referred to in 
paragraph 4 in order to monitor compliance with the obligation to pay the toll 
applicable under Article 10(1) of the Law on Roads. 
Article 179 … (3) A driver who drives a road vehicle on a road forming part of 
the toll road network without having paid the toll owed under Article 10(1), 
point 1, of the Law on Roads shall be liable to a fine in the amount of 300 leva 
(BGN).  
Article 189f … (2) When finding offences to have been committed under 
Article 179(3) to (3b), the supervisory authority shall advise the offender of the 
possibility of paying the charge referred to in Article 10(2) of the Law on Roads 
before they issue a notice of a finding as to the commission of an administrative 
offence. If the administrative offence notice is issued in the absence of the 
offender, the latter shall be advised of the possibility of paying the aforementioned 
charge at the time of service [of the notice]. 
… 
(5) Upon payment of the charge referred to in Article 10(2) of the Law on 
Roads within the time limit and in accordance with the conditions laid down in 
DIREKTOR NA NATSIONALNO TOL UPRAVLENIE 
 
5 
paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof, and upon receipt of the amount in the account of the 
‘Road Infrastructure’ Agency, the offender shall be exempted from liability under 
administrative criminal law for the specific offence found to have been committed 
by the administrative offence notice referred to in Article 179(3) to (3b). In such 
cases, the owner, the registered holder and the driver of the road vehicle in 
question shall be exempt from liability under administrative criminal law for the 
administrative offence under Article 179(3) to (3b) of driving on a road forming 
part of the toll road network. 
(6) If the charge referred to in Article 10(2) of the Law on Roads is paid within 
the time limit and in accordance with the conditions laid down in paragraphs 3 and 
4 thereof, an administrative offence notice under Article 179(3) to (3b) shall not 
be issued and, if one has already been issued, a fine notice shall not be issued and 
the proceedings shall be terminated.  
… 
(9) Information from the electronic toll system referred to in Article 10(1) of the 
Law on Roads, which, until such time as proof to the contrary is furnished, shall 
have probative force in relation the details contained therein, may be included in 
the administrative case file. 
NAREDBA za usloviata, reda i pravilata za izgrazhdane i funktsionirane na 
smesena sistema za taksuvane na razlichnite kategorii patni prevozni sredstva na 
baza vreme i na baza izminato razstoyanie (Regulation on the conditions, 
procedure and arrangements for setting up and operating a mixed time-based and 
distance-based system of fees for the various categories of vehicle, ‘the 
Regulation’), Article 4: 
… (2) Vignette fees shall be levied in accordance with the schedule of tolls 
operated by the ‘Road Infrastructure’ Agency and adopted by decision of Council 
of Ministers Decision No 219 of 2008 (DV No 79 of 2008), and depending on the 
period of validity, as follows: 
1. Annual vignette valid for a period of one year from the first day of validity 
indicated at the time of payment; … 
TARIFA za taksite, koito se sabirat za preminavane i polzvane na republikanskata 
patna mrezha (Schedule of tolls for driving on and using the national road 
network), Article 24 (which sets the amount of the vignette fee for the various 
periods of validity) and Article 26 (which sets the amount of the redress charge). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 At 11.04 on 12 June 2023, the electronic toll system recorded the use of the toll 
road network (namely the Varna Province stretch of the A-2 motorway) by a 
vehicle driven by BR. On 1 July 2023, while driving from Varna to Sofia, BR was 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-549/24 
 
6  
stopped twice by ‘Road Infrastructure’ Agency officials who informed him that he 
owed a redress charge in the amount of BGN 70 because he ‘did not have a valid 
vignette’. While making the return journey on 2 July 2023, he was stopped a 
further three times for the same reason. On 3 July 2023, he applied to the Direktor 
na Natsionalno tol upravlenie (Director of the National Toll Authority) at the 
‘Road Infrastructure’ Agency to have the redress charge of BGN 70 imposed on 
him revoked. Having received no reply from the National Toll Authority, on 
21 August 2023, he filed a complaint against the ‘Road Infrastructure’ Agency 
with the Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite (Consumer Protection Commission) 
and also applied to have the redress charge of BGN 70 revoked. On 28 September 
2023, he received a letter (of the same date) from the Director of the National Toll 
Authority via the Consumer Protection Commission. That letter was challenged 
by BR before the referring court and is the subject of the main proceedings. 
Notwithstanding the action brought before the referring court, BR paid the redress 
charge on 29 September 2023. 
2 It is clear from the defendant’s letter at issue that, during an ex officio inspection, 
the competent administrative authority had found that an electronic vignette valid 
from 12.05 on 12 June 2023 to 23.59 on 11 June 2024 had been purchased for the 
vehicle in question. The competent administrative authority classified the driving 
of that vehicle from 11.04 to 12.05 on 12 June 2012 as an administrative offence, 
on the ground that the driver of that vehicle had at that time been driving on the 
toll road network without a vignette. For that offence, which was recorded by the 
electronic toll system at 11.04 on 12 June 2023, an electronic fine notice was 
issued. This can be cancelled if, within 14 days of having received it, the recipient 
pays the redress charge referred to in Article 10(2) of the ZP, which allows an 
offender to obtain exemption from administrative-law penalties by paying an 
amount less than the fine (BGN 300). That letter also pointed out that payment of 
the redress charge is voluntary and it is up to each individual to decide whether or 
not to pay the redress charge and benefit from the consequences of doing so, 
namely exemption from liability under administrative criminal law. 
3 The contested letter goes on to say that, in accordance with the general terms of 
business for the operation of the National Toll Authority’s website and for the sale 
of vignettes online, by mobile app or via self-service terminals, the period of 
validity of the electronic vignette, although determined on the basis of the user’s 
data, starts to run no earlier than from the point at which payment for the vignette 
fee is received in the ‘Road Infrastructure’ Agency’s account. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
4 The application contains pleadings on the admissibility of the challenge. The 
applicant notes that, according to the information provided by the National Toll 
Authority, the vignette paid for by him was valid from 12.05 on 12 June 2023 to 
23.59 on 11 June 2024. In his submission, the National Toll Authority has thus 
introduced a new period of validity shorter than the statutory period of one year 
DIREKTOR NA NATSIONALNO TOL UPRAVLENIE 
 
7 
(see Article 4(2), point 1, of the [Bulgarian] Regulation). The applicant further 
submits that, in accordance with Article 10a(1) of the ZP, a vignette is valid ‘from 
the day indicated as the first day of validity at the time of payment’ and concludes 
from this that, on 12 June 2023, he was in possession of a vignette valid for the 
entire day. 
5 In his observations of 7 November 2023, the Director of the National Toll 
Authority submits that the action is inadmissible and unfounded. On the 
admissibility of the action, he argues that, in accordance with Article 10(2) of the 
ZP and Article 189f(2) and (6) of the ZDvP, payment of the redress charge is an 
option provided for by the legislature the exercise of which lies exclusively at the 
personal discretion of the alleged offender. For one thing, that charge is not levied 
by an express act of the fining authority and, for another, there is no provision for 
a remedy against it in the Zakon za administrativnite narushenia i nakazania (Law 
on offences under administrative law and administrative penalties), the ZDvP or 
the ZP. This leads in turn to the conclusion that there is an absence of both a 
challengeable administrative act and a set of rules laying down a procedure for 
challenging it. Furthermore, voluntary payment of the redress charge provided for 
in Article 10(2) of the ZP has the effect, by operation of law, of exempting the 
offender from liability under administrative criminal law, included in which 
exemption is the extinguishment of all of the adverse consequences of the 
administrative offence committed, with the result that, in the particular case, 
payment of the redress charge does not trigger any liability under administrative 
criminal law and no administrative offence proceedings are initiated (see 
Article 189f(5) and (6) of the ZDvP). It follows from those considerations ‘on the 
nature of the redress levy as a special mechanism for exemption from liability’ 
that the action is inadmissible.  
6 In the event that the court should examine the merits of the action, the defendant 
contends that this should be dismissed as inadmissible. The administrative offence 
of illegal driving found to have been committed was the subject of a report under 
Article 167a(3) of the ZDvP and the static recordings in the form of images that 
were attached to it which, taken as a whole, prove the circumstances vis-à-vis the 
movements of the vehicle in question as alleged by the defendant. In accordance 
with Article 189f(9) of the ZDvP, the reports and recordings in the form of images 
attached to it, and the information from the electronic toll system have clear 
probative value. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
7 The dispute in the main proceedings concerns the period of validity of the 
electronic vignette and the absence of any possibility of contesting the redress 
charge imposed, the amount of that charge, the reason for it and the way in which 
it is levied by the administrative authority. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-549/24 
 
8  
8 Since that part of the ZP which concerns the introduction of a toll road network in 
the Republic of Bulgaria transposed Directives 2019/520, 2022/362 and 2006/38, 
the relevant provisions of national law fall within the scope of the Charter, in 
particular with regard to the right to good administration, the right to an effective 
remedy and an impartial tribunal, the presumption of innocence and the rights of 
defence, as well as the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal 
offences and penalties. 
9 First question referred: The second sentence of Article 10a(1) of the ZP provides 
that, ‘depending on their period of validity, vignettes shall be available in annual, 
quarterly, monthly, weekly or weekend versions, and shall be valid from the day 
indicated as the first day of validity at the time of payment’. The wording of that 
provision is open to different interpretations with respect to the question as to 
when the period of validity of an annual vignette which has been paid for starts to 
run. According to the interpretation put forward by the applicant, the period of 
validity begins at 00.00 on the day of purchase, which is to say that the annual 
vignette purchased by the road user at 12.05 on 12 June 2023 is valid from 00.00 
on 12 June 2023 until 23.59 on 11 June 2024. According to the interpretation put 
forward by the administrative authority, the period of validity begins at the time of 
purchase, that is to say at 12.05 on 12 June 2023, and the vignette is valid until 
23.59 on 11 June 2024. 
10 In accordance with the rules of interpretation of the Bulgarian Zakon za 
normativnite aktove (Law on normative legal acts), the form of words 
‘vignettes … shall be valid from the day indicated as the first day of validity at the 
time of payment’ means that the vignette is valid from 00.00 on the day on which 
payment is made, irrespective of the time of payment. At the same time, it follows 
from the wording of Article 7a(3) [of Directive]1999/62, as amended by Directive 
2022/362, that no provision is made for the period of validity to start in this way. 
The proper resolution of the dispute depends on whether the national rule at issue 
is permissible. For, if it is permissible, the vignette would necessarily be valid 
from the start of the day (12 June 2023), irrespective of when BR paid the vignette 
fee, meaning that BR did not commit an offence. 
11 Second and third questions referred: The referring court finds that, contrary to the 
principles and rights established in the Charter, there is no national provision 
allowing the person obliged to pay the redress charge to challenge that charge 
before the administrative authority. Neither, correspondingly, is the administrative 
authority under an obligation to adjudicate on any appeal, and there is no way of 
challenging the substance or amount of the redress charge before the courts. If the 
offender pays the redress charge, he or she ceases to be liable under administrative 
criminal law, in accordance with Articles 189f and 189g of the ZDvP. Since the 
redress charge of BGN 70 is lower than the corresponding fine (Article 179(3) of 
the ZDvP – BGN 300) and the burden of proof is reversed in administrative 
offence proceedings (argument based on Article 189f(9) of the ZDvP), those liable 
to the redress charge prefer to pay this. In those circumstances, the national 
authority no longer opens a case file when such offences are found to have been 
DIREKTOR NA NATSIONALNO TOL UPRAVLENIE 
 
9 
committed. In the present case, the administrative authority did not submit any 
relevant evidence of the offence to the referring court, even though it had the 
opportunity to do so. The administrative authority simply submitted information 
in tabular form containing the few details mentioned above. In its observations, 
however, the administrative authority states that, in its view, BR’s action should 
not be examined because an examination of it is not provided for in national law. 
It is true that national law does not provide for the possibility of challenging a 
redress charge before the courts. 
12 Fourth question referred: It is also clear from the national legislation that the 
amounts of the redress charge and the fine laid down there are not proportionate to 
the offence committed (in that they fail to take into account the time when and the 
reasons why the offence was committed, the offender’s financial situation and, 
last but not least, the amount of the unpaid toll and the quality of the services 
[provided by the Roads Administration]). It must further be noted that payment of 
the redress charge does not exempt the offender from the obligation to pay the 
vignette fee for the same period (in the present case, the offender paid the redress 
charge for the offence committed on 12 June 2023 but also paid for the vignette 
for that day, and for the following days within a period of one year).