Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:815
Date: 2022-10-20
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Anonymised version 
Translation C-362/21 – 1 
Case C-362/21 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
9 June 2021 
Referring court or tribunal: 
Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
14 May 2021 
Applicant: 
Ekofrukt 
Defendant: 
Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ 
Veliko Tarnovo 
  
ORDER 
[…] 
Veliko Tarnovo, 14 May 2021 
The Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Administrative Court, Veliko Tarnovo) 
[…] 
[…] took the following matters into consideration in reaching its decision: 
The proceedings were initiated by an action brought by EOOD Ekofrukt (having 
its registered office and administrative address in Veliko Tarnovo) against the 
notification of tax liability No R 0400017005148-091-001/08.02.2018 which was 
issued by the Organi po prihodite pri TD na NAP (Revenue authorities at the 
Regional Directorate of the National Revenue Agency) Veliko Tarnovo and 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2021 – CASE C-362/21 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
confirmed by decision No 252/18.09.2018 of the Direktor na Direktsia 
‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ (Director of the ‘Appeals and Tax 
and Social Insurance Practice’ Directorate) of Veliko Tarnovo, and by which VAT 
in the total amount of 30 915.50 leva (BGN) was charged for the tax periods of 
August, September and October 2014 and interest was charged on the tax not paid 
in due time. With a view to ruling on the merits of the dispute before it, the court 
finds that an interpretation of provisions of Community law is required for the 
dispute before it to be correctly decided. The court thus considers it necessary to 
make a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union on its own initiative pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 267 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
I. Parties to the proceedings 
1. Applicant – EOOD Ekofrukt (having its registered office and administrative 
address in Veliko Tarnovo […]) 
2. Defendant – Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna 
praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo (Director of the ‘Appeals and Tax and Social Insurance 
Practice’ Directorate of Veliko Tarnovo) 
II. Subject matter of the dispute 
Notification of tax liability No R 0400017005148-091-001/08.02.2018 of Organi 
po prihodite pri TD na NAP Veliko Tarnovo, by which VAT in the total amount 
of BGN 30 915.50 was charged for the tax periods of August, September and 
October 2014 and interest was charged on the tax not paid in due time. 
III. Facts of the case relevant to the subject matter of the request for a 
preliminary ruling 
III.1. EOOD Ekofrukt is a trading company engaged in the wholesale and retail 
sale of fruit and vegetables at several outlets. 
III.2. That company was subject to an audit regarding the proper application of 
the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax; ‘the 
ZDDS’), which related to the tax periods of August, September, October and 
November 2014. 
III.3. The audit procedure was initiated by notification of tax liability No R 
04000416007146-020-001/14.10.2016 […]. It ended with the issuance of 
notification of tax liability No R 04000416007146-091-001/04.05.2017, which 
was annulled on appeal by the company by Decision No 227/04.08.2017 of the 
Director of the ‘Appeals and Tax and Social Insurance Practice’ Directorate. The 
case was referred back for re-examination. 
EKOFRUKT 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
III.4. In implementation of that decision, notification of tax liability No R 
040001717005148-020-001/04.08.2017 […] was issued. The revenue authorities 
[…] issued notification of tax liability No R 04000417005148-091-
001/08.02.2018. 
III.5. All the abovementioned documents were created as electronic documents 
and signed by electronic signature. 
III.6. In the court proceedings, the applicant contested all the electronic 
documents created in the two audit procedures. It complains that there is no 
reference to the fact that the documents are electronic documents bearing an 
electronic signature and that there is no qualified electronic signature. 
III.7. Extracts from the register of electronic signatures which show that the trust 
service provider qualifies the signatures of the revenue authorities as ‘professional 
electronic signatures’ were submitted to the court. The fact that the electronic 
signatures on the electronic documents contested by the applicant do not 
constitute qualified electronic signatures is also confirmed in expert reports. 
IV. Applicable legislation 
A. National law 
IV.A.I. The applicable law is the Zakon za elektronnia dokument i elektronnite 
udostoveritelni uslugi (Law on electronic documents and electronic trust services; 
‘the ZEDEUU’). 
IV.A.2. According to Article 3 of the ZEDEUU, an electronic document is an 
electronic document within the meaning of point 35 of Article 3 of Regulation 
(EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 
on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the 
internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ 2014 L 257, p. 73) 
(‘Regulation [EU] No 910/2014’). 
IV.A.3. According to Article 13 of the ZEDEUU, an electronic signature is an 
electronic signature within the meaning of point 10 of Article 3 of Regulation 
(EU) No 910/2014. 
(2) An advanced electronic signature is an electronic signature within the meaning 
of point 11 of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014. 
(3) A qualified electronic signature is an electronic signature within the meaning 
of point 12 of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014. 
(4) The legal effect of the electronic signature and the advanced electronic 
signature is the same as that of the handwritten signature where the parties have so 
agreed. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2021 – CASE C-362/21 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
B. Community law 
IV.B.1. Provisions of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services 
for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 
1999/93/EC. 
IV.B.2. According to recital 49 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and 
trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing 
Directive 1999/93/EC, that regulation should establish the principle that an 
electronic signature should not be denied legal effect on the grounds that it is in an 
electronic form or that it does not meet all the requirements of the qualified 
electronic signature. However, it is for national law to define the legal effect of 
electronic signatures, except for the requirements provided for in this Regulation 
according to which a qualified electronic signature should have the equivalent 
legal effect of a handwritten signature. 
IV.B.3. According to point 10 of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, 
‘electronic signature’ means data in electronic form which is attached to or 
logically associated with other data in electronic form and which is used by the 
signatory to sign. 
IV.B.4. According to point 11 of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, 
‘advanced electronic signature’ means an electronic signature which meets the 
requirements set out in Article 26. 
IV.B.5. According to point 12 of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, 
‘qualified electronic signature’ means an advanced electronic signature that is 
created by a qualified electronic signature creation device, and which is based on a 
qualified certificate for electronic signatures. 
IV.B.6. According to point 15 of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, 
‘qualified certificate for electronic signature’ means a certificate for electronic 
signatures, that is issued by a qualified trust service provider and meets the 
requirements laid down in Annex I. 
IV.B.7. According to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, an electronic 
signature is not to be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal 
proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not 
meet the requirements for qualified electronic signatures. A qualified electronic 
signature is to have the equivalent legal effect of a handwritten signature. 
Case-law 
V.1. With regard to the first question to be resolved by the referring court – the 
existence of a valid administrative act duly signed with an electronic signature – 
EKOFRUKT 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
there is conflicting case-law from the chambers of the Varhoven administrativen 
sad (Supreme Administrative Court) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which is the 
court of final instance for disputes such as the present. 
V.1.1. In some of the judgments and orders of the Supreme Administrative Court, 
it is stated that the document is duly signed if there is a document issued by the 
provider concerning the existence of a valid electronic signature. The question 
whether the electronic signature is a ‘qualified electronic signature’ was neither 
examined nor discussed. 
V.1.2. In other judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court, it is stated that a 
document cannot be objected to if it has been signed with an electronic signature. 
V.2. The referring court is not aware of any case-law of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union on the interpretation of point 12 of Article 3 and Article 25 of 
Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic 
transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC. 
VI. Submissions and legal conclusions of the parties 
VI.1. The applicant contends that all the documents produced by the revenue 
authorities in the audit procedures are unsigned, as the electronic signatures of the 
officials are not ‘qualified electronic signatures’. 
VI.2. The defendant takes the view that electronic documents cannot be objected 
to on the ground that they do not bear a qualified electronic signature. 
VII. Reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
VII.1. Where express reference is made to the wording of Regulation 
No 910/2014 as regards the legal definition of ‘qualified electronic signature’, the 
Court of Justice of the European Union alone has jurisdiction to interpret the 
provision in question. The referring court requires additional guidance on the 
intensity of the assessment of specific signatures’ compliance with the content 
prescribed by law, in order to be able to determine whether or not a qualified 
electronic signature exists. It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted 
that the revenue authorities affix to the electronic documents a ‘professional 
electronic signature’ – as referred to by the trust service provider in the public 
register and in the certificates. The term used in that context is not regulated in 
any normative document. However, the extract from the public register of 
electronic signatures shows that a ‘professional qualified certificate attesting to a 
qualified electronic signature’ was subsequently issued to the same persons. 
VII. 2. However, it is also argued that Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 
establishes a prohibition on the challenging of electronic documents, with the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2021 – CASE C-362/21 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
result that an electronic document is valid even if it is found that a non-qualified 
electronic signature has been affixed. That argument leads to the conclusion that 
there is unequal treatment of, on the one hand, documents drawn up on paper and 
signed by hand and, on the other hand, electronic documents signed by electronic 
signature. In the event that a paper document is challenged and it is found that the 
signature is not that of the author specified, the document is declared to be invalid 
owing to the lack of a signature. In the case of an electronic document, even if it 
were found that the electronic signature is not a qualified signature, it could not be 
presumed that the document is not signed, and it would be valid. However, 
Article 25(2) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 puts only a qualified electronic 
signature on an equal footing with a handwritten signature, and an unsigned 
official document is  an invalid document. 
On those grounds […] the Administrative Court, Veliko Tarnovo […] made the 
following 
ORDER: 
[…] [statements regarding the procedure] 
The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling pursuant to subparagraph (b) of the first 
paragraph of Article 267 TFEU: 
1. Is Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and 
trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing 
Directive 1999/93/EC to be interpreted as meaning that it is impermissible for an 
administrative act issued in the form of an electronic document to be declared 
invalid if it has been signed with an electronic signature which is not a ‘qualified 
electronic signature’? 
2. Is the entry of a ‘qualified electronic signature’ in the certificate issued by 
the trust service provider sufficient for a finding to be made whether or not an 
electronic signature is a qualified signature, or must the court establish compliance 
with Article 26 of and Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and 
trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing 
Directive 1999/93/EC? 
3. In a case such as that referred to above, in which the provider qualifies the 
electronic signature as ‘professional’, is that circumstance sufficient to establish 
that there is no ‘qualified electronic signature’, in the absence of a qualified 
certificate from the provider, or is it necessary to establish whether the signatures 
fulfil the requirements for a qualified electronic signature? 
4. When verifying the compliance of the qualified electronic signature with the 
requirements of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European 
EKOFRUKT 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and 
trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing 
Directive 1999/93/EC, does the fact that the names of the holder of the electronic 
signature are, instead of being indicated in Cyrillic script as used by the person to 
identify himself or herself, rather indicated in Latin script constitute an 
infringement of that regulation, leading to the conclusion that there is no qualified 
electronic signature? 
[…] [statements regarding the procedure] 
[…] [statements regarding the procedure]