Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:828
Date: 2025-10-23
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-760/23 – 1 
Case C-760/23 [Shanov] i 
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: 
8 December 2023 
Referring court: 
Rayonen sad Plovdiv (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 September 2023 
Applicant: 
‘EVN Bulgaria Toplofikatsia’ EAD 
Defendant: 
OZ 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action seeking payment for the supply of thermal energy to an apartment 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Compatibility of national legislation on calculating thermal energy consumption 
in buildings in co-ownership with Articles 101, 107 and 169 TFEU, Article 13 of 
Directive 2006/32 and Article 9(3) of Directive 2012/27; legal basis: Article 267 
TFEU 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Do Article 9(3) of Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-760/23 
 
 
2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 
2006/32/EC, and Article 169 TFEU preclude the payment of costs for 
thermal energy radiated from a building’s installation if staircases and 
corridors are not equipped with radiators? 
2. Do Article 9(3) of Directive 2012/27/EU and Article 169 TFEU preclude the 
possibility of a district heating supplier demanding consideration, on the 
basis of national legislation, for the consumption of heat from a building’s 
installation, where the quantity of thermal energy is determined according to 
a formula developed by the administration which 
– introduces a factor determining the share of the total capacity of the 
heating system accounted for by the installed capacity of the building’s 
installation, without it being clear how that factor is established; 
– is based on an installed capacity of the building’s installation which takes 
no account of what capacity is actually installed; 
– takes no account of the temperature of the heat transfer medium in the 
building’s installation; 
– assumes that the installation is constantly run at full capacity; 
– takes no account of the specific mode of operation of the various types of 
heating system (Tichelmann in the present case) and treats them as identical 
with regard to mode of operation; 
– automatically assumes an average temperature of 19 °C for buildings in 
co-ownership? 
3. Do Article 9(3) of Directive 2012/27 and Article 169 TFEU preclude the 
possibility of a district heating supplier demanding consideration, on the 
basis of national legislation, for the consumption of heat for hot water, 
where the quantity of thermal energy is determined according to a formula 
developed by the administration which takes no account of the temperature 
to which the water is to be heated and supplied to subscribers or of the 
thermal energy required to heat it, does not take into account how many 
cubic metres of hot water the subscribers have consumed, and is applied in 
such a way that the quantity of water calculated for the winter heating period 
is always double the quantity calculated in summer? 
4. Do Article 13 of Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use efficiency and energy 
services and repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC, Article 9(3) of 
Directive 2012/27 and Article 169 TFEU preclude the possibility of a 
district heating supplier demanding consideration, on the basis of national 
legislation, for the consumption of heat from the installation of a building in 
co-ownership in proportion to the heatable volume of the apartments 
SHANOV 
 
3 
according to the floor plan, without taking into account the quantity of 
thermal energy actually emitted in line with the technical capacity of the 
heating systems in the respective apartments? 
For the purpose of answering that question, is it relevant that, under national 
legislation, the thermal energy of a building’s installation is a component in 
the algorithm for calculating the final amount to be paid by users for the 
total heat (the sum of the amounts for thermal energy emitted from the 
building’s installation, for heating and for hot water), whereby the amount to 
be paid for heating an apartment is derived from the difference between the 
total thermal energy (minuend) and the sum of the thermal energy from the 
installation, the thermal energy emitted by the radiators in the common parts 
of the building and the thermal energy for hot water (subtrahend)? 
5. Does national legislation under which consumers pay for the supply of 
thermal energy emitted from a building’s installation in proportion to the 
heatable volume of the apartments according to the floor plan, without 
consideration of the amount of heat actually emitted to the individual 
apartments, infringe the prohibition of abuse of a dominant position under 
Article 101 TFEU and the prohibition on granting unlawful State aid under 
Article 107 TFEU[?] 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Articles 101(1), 107(1) and 169(1) TFEU 
Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 
2006 on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and repealing Council 
Directive 93/76/EEC, Article 13 
Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 
2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, recitals 64 and 
65, Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 10 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Zakon za energetikata (Law on energy), Articles 38a(1), 38b(1), 125(3), 139(1), 
140(1), 140a, 141, 142 and 150; Paragraph 1(1), (16), (27), (37), (38), (39), (50), 
(57) and (58) of the additional provisions 
Naredba za toplosnabdyavaneto (Order on district heating) No 16-334 of 6 April 
2007, Articles 38(1), (2) and (3), 49(1) to (4), 51(1) and (2), 52(1) to (8), 57 and 
58; Paragraph 1(1), (2a), (3), (8), (12) and (13a) of the additional provisions and 
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the transitional and final provisions; annex to Article 61(1) 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-760/23 
 
 
of that order entitled ‘Calculation method for the allocation of thermal energy 
consumption in buildings in co-ownership’ 
Pokazateli za kachestvoto na toplosnabdyavaneto (Indicators for the quality of 
thermal energy supply), adopted on 30 September 2004 by the Darzhavna komisia 
za energiyno i vodno regulirane (State Commission for Energy and Water 
Regulation) 
Metodika na Darzhavnata komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane za opredelyane 
na dopustimite razmeri na tehnologichnite razhodi na toplinna energia pri prenos 
na toplinna energia (State Commission for Energy and Water Regulation 
methodology for the determination of permissible means of measuring the 
technological costs of thermal energy during transmission) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant submits that, as an energy supplier within the meaning of the Law 
on energy, it is licensed to generate thermal energy and transmit it to the points of 
delivery of buildings for the purposes of heating and hot water supply. 
2 The defendant is the owner of a heated apartment and has an obligation, as a 
customer, to pay the amounts owed to the applicant for the supply of heat under 
the general terms and conditions on a monthly basis. 
3 The applicant submits that it supplied thermal energy worth 519 leva (BGN) 
between 1 May 2018 and 31 October 2020, which has not been paid for. It further 
submits that, as a result of the delay in payment, interest amounting to BGN 78.20 
is owed for the period from 3 July 2018 to 5 April 2021. 
4 Since the defendant did not pay the abovementioned amounts, the applicant 
obtained an order for payment, against which the defendant lodged an objection, 
leaving the applicant obliged under national law to make its claim by means of the 
present action. 
5 The defendant contests the claim, including the actual use of thermal energy and 
thermal consumption, the accuracy of the calculated and allocated energy, the 
adequacy of the meters and the proper functioning of the point of delivery, the 
correctness of the accounting entries and the size of the amounts claimed. 
6 He considers that the formula used to calculate the thermal energy for a building’s 
installation infringes EU law. He submits that no consumption of heat occurred in 
the apartment during the period in question, since the radiators were not able to 
emit that heat, so the amounts are not owed. 
7 The court has obtained a technical expert opinion in which the expert notes, in 
particular, that 
SHANOV 
 
5 
– the point of delivery was in operation during the period in question, 
– the common thermal energy meter of the point of delivery and its sensors 
were installed correctly, and the number and installation of the meters at the point 
of delivery fulfilled requirements, 
– the thermal energy meters used were of an approved type, had been tested 
for metering accuracy and were suitable for commercial metering, 
– the quantity of thermal energy supplied to the point of delivery was 
measured using the thermal energy meter at the beginning of each month, the data 
being read at 0.00 on the first day of the month, 
– the technological costs were subtracted from the quantity read and the 
difference was divided up among all users, 
– that division and allocation was done correctly and in line with the 
requirements of the established methodology. 
8 However, the expert makes the following clarifications: 
– the point of delivery was in poor condition and the quantity of thermal 
energy which the heating supplier determined had been consumed at the point of 
delivery cannot be correct; 
– the thermal energy meters at the point of delivery had seals placed on them 
when they were installed and were found without seals when they were later 
removed, which is not permitted, since it makes it possible to manipulate the 
meter; 
– the quantity of energy determined by the supplier for heating one cubic 
metre physically cannot be correct and is far too high; 
– the formula used by the supplier for its calculations is based on system 
output at temperatures which were not actually reached, meaning it assumes that 
the system is run at maximum capacity; 
– it is not possible to consume the quantity allocated in the particular building 
in question. 
9 The expert notes that the calculations made using that methodology ultimately 
result in users who use no thermal energy paying part of the amounts owed by 
those users who do consume thermal energy, because the invoices issued to the 
non-consuming users contain part of the costs owed for thermal energy for 
heating. 
10 The expert’s findings have not been disputed by the parties. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-760/23 
 
 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
11 The defendant disputes in its entirely the manner in which thermal energy 
consumption was determined and submits that the national legislation does not 
comply with the EU requirement that consumers pay for their actual energy 
consumption. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
12 The principal issues in the present case concern the permissibility of determining 
heat consumption in accordance with the methodology provided for in national 
law. A number of factors taken into account in the calculation of actual heat 
consumption give the referring court cause for doubt. 
13 In the view of the referring court, the formula used for that purpose is unclear and 
obliges a user who uses no thermal energy in his or her apartment to pay for the 
transmission of energy to other users. The formula for calculating the heat emitted 
by the building’s installation includes values determined under design conditions 
without taking into account whether the heating systems are actually run under 
design conditions and under what conditions those systems are actually run. The 
individual characteristics of the buildings, and their thermal and structural 
properties, are also not taken into account. 
14 Under Article 9(3) of Directive 2012/27, if the quantity of energy consumption 
cannot be determined accurately, transparent rules can be introduced, such rules 
including guidelines on the way to allocate costs for heat and/or hot water that is 
used as follows: 
(a) hot water for domestic needs; 
(b) heat radiated from the building installation and for the purpose of heating the 
common areas (where staircases and corridors are equipped with radiators); 
(c) for the purpose of heating apartments. 
15 Under the formula provided for in Bulgarian law, however, consumers who use no 
thermal energy are required to pay amounts payable by those who do use heating. 
16 The referring court also includes in its considerations the expert’s finding that the 
actual output does not correspond to the installed heating capacity of the building. 
In the present case, it is apparent from the submitted design of the heating system 
that the manufacturer itself determined the capacity of the system on the basis of 
parameters (hot water temperature of 95 °C, drainage water temperature of 70 °C 
and ambient temperature of 20 °C) which are not in place in practice. The output 
of the heating system is consequently not that which was defined under design 
conditions, since the heating system is not actually run under design conditions. 
SHANOV 
 
7 
17 The referring court points out that radiators marked ‘zero’ were not read. Where a 
thermostatic valve is present, any user can interrupt the heat input to those devices 
if he or she so wishes. It is not known and cannot be foreseen by whom and when 
the input of heat to the radiators will be interrupted, which may significantly 
reduce the actual output at which the heating system is run. 
18 It is also unclear why it is assumed that the average temperature for buildings in 
co-ownership is 19 °C, while the design conditions were calculated on the basis of 
20 °C. Moreover, the material of the pipes and its thermal parameters were not 
taken into account.