Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:405
Date: 2024-05-16
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Citizenship of the Union;Right of entry and residence;Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-222/23 – 1 
Case C-222/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling under Article 98(1) of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Court 
Date lodged: 
7 April 2023 
Referring court: 
Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
7 April 2023 
Applicant in the order for payment proceedings: 
‘Toplofikatsia Sofia’ EAD 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Application addressed to the referring court for an order for payment relating to a 
pecuniary claim 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the interpretation of 
Article 18(1) TFEU and of Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 62(1) of Regulation 
No 1215/2012 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Is Article 62(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the 
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read 
in conjunction with Articles 18(1) and 21 TFEU, to be interpreted as 
precluding the concept of a natural person’s ‘domicile’ from being derived from 
national legislation which provides that the permanent address of nationals of the 
forum State is always situated in that State and cannot be transferred to another 
place in the European Union? 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-222/23 
 
2  
2. Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, read in conjunction with 
Articles 18(1) and 21 TFEU, to be interpreted as permitting national legislation 
and national case-law under which a court of a State may not refuse to issue an 
order for payment against a debtor who is a national of that State and in respect of 
whom there is a reasonable presumption that the court lacks international 
jurisdiction because 
the debtor is likely to be domiciled in another EU State, which is apparent from 
the debtor’s declaration to the competent authority that he has a registered address 
in that State? In such a case, is the date on which that declaration was made 
relevant? 
3. Where the international jurisdiction of the court seised is derived from a 
provision other than Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, must 
Article 18(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 47(2) of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as 
precluding national legislation and national case-law under which an order for 
payment may be issued only against a natural person who is habitually resident in 
the forum State, but a finding that the debtor, if a national of that State, has 
established that he is resident in another State cannot be based solely on the fact 
that he has given the first State a registered address (‘current’ address) that is in 
another State of the European Union, if the debtor is unable to demonstrate that he 
has entirely moved to that other State and has no address in the territory of the 
forum State? In this case, is the date on which the declaration concerning the 
current address was made relevant? 
4. If the answer to the first part of the third question is that the issue of an order 
for payment is permissible, is it permissible under Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012, read in conjunction with Article 22(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 
2020/1784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 
on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in 
civil or commercial matters, as interpreted in the judgment in Case C-325/11, 
Alder, and in conjunction with the principle of effective application of EU law in 
the exercise of national procedural autonomy, 
for a national court of a State in which nationals cannot give up their registered 
addresses in the territory of that State and cannot transfer them to another State, 
when it receives an application for an order for payment in proceedings in which 
the debtor is not involved, to obtain information in accordance with Article 7 of 
Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 from the authorities of the State in which the debtor 
has a registered address about the debtor’s address in that State and the date of 
registration there, in order to determine the debtor’s actual habitual residence 
before the final decision is given in the case? 
TOPLOFIKATSIA SOFIA 
 
3 
EU legislation and case-law 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 18(1) and 21 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 47(2) 
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of 
judgments in civil and commercial matters, Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 62(1) 
Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
25 November 2020 on the service in the Member States of judicial and 
extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), 
Articles 7 and 22 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 December 2012, Alder, C-325/11, 
EU:C:2012:824 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 September 2021, Toplofikatsia Sofia and 
Others, C-208/20 and C-256/20, EU:C:2021:719; the questions referred for a 
preliminary ruling in the present case have some similarities with the questions 
referred in Joined Cases C-208/20 and C-256/20 as regards the possibility for the 
court to determine whether it has jurisdiction after having already issued the order 
for payment. The essential difference in the present case is that the court intends 
to base its jurisdiction on information obtained before the order for payment is 
issued. 
National legislation and case-law 
Zakon za zadalzheniata i dogovorite (Law on obligations and contracts; ‘the 
ZZD’), Article 68(a) 
Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Code of civil procedure; ‘the GPK’), 
Articles 38, 40 to 48, 53, 246, 282, 410, 411, 413 to 416, 419 and 423 
Kodeks na mezhdunarodnoto chastno pravo (Code of private international law; 
‘the KMChP’), Articles 4 and 48 
Zakon za grazhdanskata registratsia (Law on the registration of citizens; ‘the 
ZGR’), Articles 3, 90, 93, 94 and 96 
Interpretative decision No 4/2013 of the Obshto sabranie na grazhdanskata i 
targovskata kolegii (General Assembly of Civil and Commercial Chambers; ‘the 
OSGTK’) of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation; ‘the 
VKS’) of 18 June 2014 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-222/23 
 
4  
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant in the order for payment proceedings is ‘Toplofikatsia Sofia’ EAD, 
a company registered under Bulgarian law. 
2 The debtor is not yet a party to the order for payment proceedings, as he only 
becomes a party after the court, if competent, has issued the order for payment. 
The proceedings, however, are to be brought against V.Z.A., a Bulgarian national. 
3 On 6 March 2023, the applicant applied to the referring court for an order for 
payment against the debtor for a pecuniary claim arising from the fact that the 
debtor was the owner of immovable property heated by the district heating 
network (an apartment located in a co-owned building) and had not paid for the 
energy supplied. The applicant claims a debt of 700.61 leva (BGN) for energy 
supplied between 15 September 2020 and 22 February 2023, together with 
interest. 
4 The court, of its own motion, requested information from the population register 
in March 2023. According to this information, V.Z.A., the debtor, has a 
permanent address registered in 2000 in Sofia (Bulgaria) and, since 6 March 2010, 
has had a current address registered with the Bulgarian authorities that is in 
another Member State of the European Union. Bulgarian law does not provide for 
the possibility of registering a particular current address abroad but merely for 
indicating the other State in which it is located. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
5 The referring court does not state whether the applicant in the main proceedings 
has taken a position on the request for a preliminary ruling. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
The first and second questions referred 
6 The request for a preliminary ruling seeks to clarify the requirements of EU law to 
which national courts are subject (in particular the provisions of Article 4(1) and 
Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, according to which persons 
domiciled in a Member State may be sued only where they are domiciled), if the 
opposing party, in unilateral proceedings, cannot contest or expressly recognise 
the jurisdiction of the court seised before the final judgment is delivered. The 
present case concerns an order for payment procedure in which the court seised 
examines the arguments of the applicant (creditor) primarily from a formal point 
of view and invites the defendant (debtor) to declare whether or not he contests 
the claim. If the debtor does not contest the claim, he is in the position of a person 
ordered to make payment. 
TOPLOFIKATSIA SOFIA 
 
5 
7 According to the referring court, the Court of Justice has previously held, in its 
judgment of 9 September 2021, Toplofikatsia Sofia and Others (C-208/20 and 
C-256/20, EU:C:2021:719), that the court which issued the order for payment 
cannot set it aside if it finds that the debtor had no address in the forum State. In 
such a case, enforcement would have to be undertaken and, if the debtor became 
aware of the order in the course of the enforcement proceedings, he could defend 
himself by means of the remedy provided by national law which is referred to in 
interpretative decision No 4/2013 of the VKS OSGTK. 
8 According to the aforementioned interpretative decision No 4/2013 of the VKS 
OSGTK, although the circumstances referred to in Article 411(2), point 4 
(permanent address in Bulgaria) and point 5 (habitual residence in Bulgaria), of 
the GPK are conditions for the issue of an order for payment, by their nature they 
are not to be examined prior to service of the order already made. If it transpires 
that the order was made against a debtor who has no permanent address at all in 
the Republic of Bulgaria, the order must be set aside by the issuing court of its 
own motion. However, if the debtor has a permanent address but is not habitually 
resident in the national territory, the order cannot be set aside by the court that 
issued it. The court issuing the order for payment checks only whether the debtor 
has a permanent address in the Republic of Bulgaria; if that is the case, service 
may be effected either through another person or by affixing a notice, so that there 
is no need to check whether the person is habitually resident in the national 
territory. 
9 According to the referring court, the solution adopted by the VKS with regard to 
the determination of the debtor’s habitual residence as a specific condition of 
national law for the issue of an order for payment is problematic because it is 
extremely restrictive and fails to take account of the effective application of the 
absolute condition laid down in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, 
according to which, save in special cases, a debtor domiciled in the European 
Union may be sued only in the State in which he is domiciled. 
10 The difficulty lies in the fact that an order for payment against a debtor with a 
registered address in Bulgaria is almost always issued, regardless of whether or 
not he has also provided an address abroad. This is because under national law 
(Article 411(1) of the GPK, read in conjunction with Article 93(1) and (2) of the 
ZGR), the domicile of the debtor against whom a Bulgarian court may issue an 
order for payment is determined by whether a permanent address of the debtor can 
be ascertained, and under Article 93(2) and (4) of the ZGR a Bulgarian national 
always has his permanent address in Bulgaria and cannot change it even if he 
moves to another Member State. This makes it considerably more difficult for 
Bulgarian nationals to exercise the right to free movement and freedom of 
residence conferred by Article 21 TFEU, since, when exercising their freedom of 
establishment in another State, Bulgarian nationals remain tied to Bulgarian 
territory and are still required to have someone in Bulgaria who receives their 
correspondence there. Otherwise, they could become ‘victims’ of an order for 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-222/23 
 
6  
payment issued against them, against which they would have difficulty defending 
themselves. 
11 This puts Bulgarian nationals who have exercised their right to free movement and 
freedom of establishment in another EU Member State in a situation of possible 
‘reverse’ discrimination on grounds of nationality, contrary to Article 18 TFEU. 
In accordance with Article 53 of the GPK, nationals of other EU Member States 
who are permanently resident in Bulgaria are summonsed at the address which 
they have communicated to the immigration services and which includes a 
permanent and current address (under Article 3(2)(2) of the ZGR, read in 
conjunction with Articles 93 and 94 thereof). When those nationals of other 
Member States cease to reside in Bulgaria, they are deregistered, and so the 
jurisdiction of the Bulgarian courts to issue orders for payment against them 
ceases to exist. By contrast, Bulgarian nationals cannot give up their permanent 
address and remain required to have someone in Bulgaria who is prepared to 
receive communications. They are thus treated differently from foreign nationals, 
and the sole reason cited by the law for that treatment is to simplify matters for the 
administrative authorities. 
12 Furthermore, in view of Article 94(3) of the ZGR, according to which the current 
address of Bulgarian nationals living abroad is entered in the population register 
only with the name of the country in which they live, there is no scope for a 
Bulgarian national to inform the Bulgarian State of his exact address outside 
Bulgaria where he resides and can receive correspondence. Nor is there any scope 
for a telephone number or electronic communication channel to be officially 
registered. In effect, the Bulgarian State prohibits its nationals from indicating a 
means of contact with which they can be reached outside its territory. 
13 For the outcome of an order for payment procedure the initiation of which the 
debtor cannot foresee, it is of crucial importance that the order for payment 
actually be served on the debtor in a way which enables him to arrange for his 
defence. He could thus enforce his rights in court proceedings, but those rights are 
considerably limited by the restrictive application of the rules on the registration 
of an address abroad and by interpretative decision No 4/2013 of the VKS 
OSGTK, in so far as it is not permissible, according to that interpretative decision, 
for the national court seised to refuse to issue an order for payment where the 
debtor is a Bulgarian national who has indicated a current address abroad. 
14 It is therefore necessary to answer, first, the question whether it is compatible with 
Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 that the international jurisdiction of 
national courts to issue orders for payment is based on the national concept of 
domicile, which relates to a permanent address that cannot be located abroad. 
Second, it is necessary to examine whether it is compatible with the said provision 
that, when determining domicile, the court seised may not rely on information 
relating to the debtor’s current registered address, as stated in interpretative 
decision No 4/2013 of the VKS OSGTK. 
TOPLOFIKATSIA SOFIA 
 
7 
The third question referred 
15 It should be noted that, although the rule laid down in Article 5(1) of Regulation 
No 1215/2012 (persons domiciled in the European Union are to be sued where 
they are domiciled) is binding on the Member States, it does not apply without 
exception, since that regulation provides for a number of special jurisdictions to 
hear disputes arising from certain specific types of legal relationship. In the 
present case, there is a contract for the supply of thermal energy to a property 
located in the city of Sofia, which means that, under the second indent of 
Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (in the alternative, under point (a) 
thereof), the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian courts is based on the place of 
contractual performance. This does not mean, however, that the question whether 
a domicile in Bulgaria exists becomes irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute 
before the referring court when this circumstance is taken into account. 
16 This is because, under national law, the issuing of an order for payment is not a 
general procedure for settling civil disputes but a type of simplification for certain 
creditors, which can only be invoked if a number of specific conditions are met. 
One of these conditions under Bulgarian law is that the debtor must be habitually 
resident in Bulgaria. This condition is not derived from EU law but from national 
law; in so far as it is introduced by the State, however, it is subject to the principle 
of non-discrimination laid down in Article 18 TFEU. 
17 In these circumstances, the second question needs to be answered only in relation 
to whether the provision of interpretative decision No 4/2013 of the VKS OSGTK 
prohibiting national courts from considering a current address as an indication that 
the debtor is not habitually resident in Bulgaria is permissible, given that it leads 
to ‘reverse’ discrimination (Article 18 TFEU). In the present case, Bulgarian 
nationals who leave Bulgaria are placed at a disadvantage in so far as, according 
to the relevant case-law, they must have a correspondent in the country in order to 
be able to defend themselves against the issuing of an order for payment against 
them, since the court is unable to consider of its own motion their declaration that 
they have transferred their domicile to another Member State. By contrast, no such 
obligation exists for persons of foreign nationality who are habitually resident in 
Bulgaria and who leave the country, and as soon as those persons leave Bulgaria 
the Bulgarian courts also cease to have any jurisdiction to issue orders for 
payment against them. 
The fourth question referred 
18 If the requirements of interpretative decision No 4/2013 of the VKS OSGTK are 
met, according to which, if the debtor is a Bulgarian national, the indication of a 
current registered address in another Member State does not constitute sufficient 
evidence that he is habitually resident, for the purposes of the procedural 
conditions for issuing an order for payment, in another State, the question arises 
for the referring court whether, in the light of its own obligations under EU law, it 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-222/23 
 
8  
may nevertheless examine that procedural condition of its own motion, even 
though the VKS prohibits it. 
19 In particular, in its judgment of 19 December 2012, Alder (C-325/11, 
EU:C:2012:824), the Court of Justice held that national legal provisions requiring 
a party to legal proceedings who is domiciled in a Member State of the Union 
other than the State of the court seised to designate a recipient in the latter State 
are inapplicable. In the present case, the scope of such a rule is to be extended, 
since, under Bulgarian law, an order for payment issued against the debtor is 
served at his registered address in the national territory. 
20 In order to ensure effective fulfilment of the requirement that judicial documents 
not be served only in the forum State, as set out in the judgment in Alder, the 
referring court therefore considers that the provision in Article 22 of Regulation 
2020/1784 (if service of the order is also necessary in the present case) could 
require the referring court, in cases where there is evidence that a debtor who is a 
Bulgarian national has a current address abroad, to obtain further information 
concerning the habitual residence of that national. 
21 The effective application of the rule laid down in Article 4(1) of Regulation 
No 1215/2012, according to which the debtor must, in principle, be sued where he 
is domiciled, therefore presupposes that the domicile of the debtor is identified by 
a national court which should, in principle, issue orders for payment only against 
persons who are habitually resident in the territory of the State of that court. The 
referring court considers that, since national law does not provide for the 
possibility of determining a debtor’s address outside Bulgaria, it must exercise the 
option of address enquiries offered by Article 7 of Regulation 2020/1784 to 
determine an address abroad.