Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:565
Date: 2025-07-10
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary  C-294/24 – 1 
Case C-294/24 [Zadzhova] 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:  
24 April 2024 
Referring court:  
Rayonen sad Burgas (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
24 April 2024 
Applicant in the main proceedings:  
‘Vodosnabdyavane i kanalizatsia’ EAD 
Defendant in the main proceedings: 
ED 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Applications for a declaration as to the defendant’s liabilities to the applicant in 
the amount of BGN 693.56, representing the principal amount owed for water 
supplied, drained and treated, plus statutory interest on that principal amount from 
the date on which the applications were filed with the court, that is to say, 
27 October 2023, to the final settlement of the liability, and in the amount of 
BGN 81.30, representing compensation for default in the period from 
25 September 2021 to 24 October 2023. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The present proceedings are governed by Articles 628 to 633 of the Grazhdanski 
protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure) in conjunction with Article 267 of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 
 
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-294/24  
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms 
in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a term such as that laid down 
in Article 3[1](2) of the standard business terms of the Vodosnabdyavane i 
kanalizatsia Burgas (Burgas Water Supply and Sewerage Utility, ‘the Burgas 
Water Utility’) causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the 
contractual parties as provided for in the standard business terms, to the detriment 
of the consumer, given that the recoverability of a debt under those provisions of 
the standard business terms, and the start of the limitation period applicable to a 
debt for services supplied to consumers by the Burgas Water Utility, is 
exclusively dependent on the conduct of the water utility in relation to the issuing 
of an invoice, even if the utility does not comply with its obligation to issue 
monthly invoices? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer 
contracts – Article 3(1) 
Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and 
Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and 
repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council – Article 1, Article 2(1), Article 3 and Article 4 
Treaty on the European Union – Article 19 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Article 169 
Provisions of national law and case-law relied on 
Zakon za zashtita na potrebitelite (Law on consumer protection, ‘the ZZP’) – 
Article 143; Paragraph 13 of the Dopalnitelni razporedbi (Additional provisions) 
Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure, ‘the GPK’) – 
Articles 5 to 13 and 236 
Zakon za normativnite aktove (Law on normative legal acts, ‘the ZNA’) – 
Article 46 
Zakon za zadalzheniata i dogovorite (Law on obligations and contracts, ‘the 
ZZD’): 
Article 69. If the liability is not subject to a time limit, the creditor may demand its 
immediate discharge. 
ZADZHOVA 
 
3 
Article 84. If a date for discharge of the liability is specified, the debtor shall fall 
into default at the end of that date. … 
If no date for discharge of the liability is specified, the debtor shall fall into default 
after having been sent an order to pay by the creditor. 
Article 111. The following shall be subject to a limitation period of three years: 
… 
b) (Amended – Darzhaven vestnik [Official State Gazette] No 12/1993) Claims 
for compensation and penalties for non-performance of a contract; 
c) Claims to rent, interest and other recurring payments. 
Article 114. The limitation period shall start to run on the date on which the debt 
becomes recoverable. 
If it has been agreed that the debt is not to become recoverable until after the issue 
of an order to pay, the limitation period shall start to run on the date on which the 
liability accrued. 
Article 119. Extinguishment of the principal debt shall have the effect of also 
extinguishing the ancillary debts arising from the principal debt, even if they are 
not yet time-barred. 
Standard Business Terms for the Provision of Water and Wastewater Services to 
Consumers by the Municipality of Burgas Water Utility: 
Article 7. The water utility shall be entitled: 
1. to receive from the consumer within the prescribed period the amounts owed 
for water and wastewater services provided; 
Article 31(1) The water utility shall issue invoices on a monthly basis, unless a 
different billing period has been expressly agreed. 
(2) Consumers are obliged to pay the amounts owed for water and wastewater 
services used by them within 30 of the date of issue of the invoice. 
Article 42. In the event of failure to pay for services used within the prescribed 
period, the consumer shall owe the water utility compensation in the amount of 
the statutory interest laid down in Article 86(1) [of the ZZD] from the first day 
following the date on which the amount owed becomes enforceable to the date on 
which that amount is received in the water utility’s account. 
Judgment No 801 of 11 April 2022 of the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, 
Bulgaria) in Case No 6686/2021; 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-294/24  
 
4  
Judgment No 806 of 28 February 2019 of the Rayonen sad Plovdiv (District 
Court, Plovdiv, Bulgaria) in Case No 6360/2018; 
Judgment No 293 of 16 April 2020 of the Okrazhen sad Varna (Regional Court, 
Varna, Bulgaria) in Appeal Case No 125/2020; 
Judgment No 849 of 15 August 2022 of the Okrazhen sad Burgas (Regional 
Court, Burgas, Bulgaria) in Appeal Case No 857/2022 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The proceedings in the civil case before the Rayonen sad Burgas (District Court, 
Burgas) were initiated by the applications, filed by the Vodosnabdyavane i 
kanalizatsia EAD (a water utility in the form of a Ednolichno aktsionerno 
druzhestvo [single-member company limited by shares]) against ED, seeking a 
declaration, in relation to the legal relationship between the parties, that the 
defendant owes the applicant, in accordance with Article 415(1), point 2, in 
conjunction with Article 422 of the GPK in conjunction with Articles 79 and 
86(1) of the ZZD: the sum of BGN 693.56, representing the principal amount due 
for water supplied, drained and treated at the point of consumption in the city of 
Burgas in the billing period from 17 March 2020 to 12 May 2023 and the billing 
period from 25 August 2021 to 25 May 2023, plus statutory interest on the 
aforementioned principal amount from the date on which application was made to 
the court, that is to say, 27 October 2023, until final settlement of the liability, and 
the sum of BGN 81.30, representing compensation for default in the period from 
25 September 2021 to 24 October 2023. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
2 The applicant claims that, in accordance with the applicant’s standard business 
terms, the defendant must be classified as a consumer of water and wastewater 
services to the immovable property at issue. During the period at issue, the 
defendant consumed water supplied, drained and treated at the point of 
consumption and invoices for those services were issued, but the defendant failed 
to settle its liabilities under those invoices within 30 days of their respective dates 
of issue, in accordance with Article 3[1](2) of the standard business terms. The 
defendant’s non-performance triggered an obligation to pay compensation for 
default from the date on which each invoice became enforceable. The applicant 
obtained in respect of the liabilities at issue an order to pay issued to the debtor in 
accordance with Article 47(5) of the GPK, and the instructions issued by the court 
conferred on the applicant a legal interest in bringing the present action, in 
accordance with Article 422 of the GPK. 
3 The applicant claims that the court should grant its applications. 
4 It seeks reimbursement of the judicial and procedural costs.  
ZADZHOVA 
 
5 
5 Within the statutory time limit laid down in Article 131(1) of the GPK, the 
defendant submitted a defence in which it contends that the applications filed are 
unfounded. The applicant’s assertion that the defendant is the owner of the 
property in question and the consumer of [the associated] water and wastewater 
services is disputed. The consumption which the applicant claims to have taken 
place in respect of the property in question and the amount of the debts concerned 
are disputed. The objection is raised that the three-year limitation period 
applicable to the debts concerned has expired. The claim for interest is disputed. 
6 The defendant contends that the applications filed should be dismissed. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
7 The present proceedings were initiated by an action brought by a water utility 
against a natural person who is a national of a Member State of the European 
Union, the Republic of Bulgaria. It is common ground that the defendant, as a 
natural person party to a water supply contract, is a ‘consumer’ within the 
meaning of all definitions of that term given in both EU and Bulgarian law. It is 
submitted that the defendant acquired ownership of immovable properties in the 
Republic of Bulgaria and, in that connection, has an obligation under standard 
business terms approved by the water utility to pay for the quantity of water 
consumed, but failed to pay for it for a certain period of time. It is against that 
background that the applicant is claiming the value of the quantity of water 
supplied and compensation for default in the amount of the statutory interest 
accrued (default interest). 
8 It is important first of all to provide some clarifications with respect to the 
terminology typically used in the national law of the Republic of Bulgaria. The 
ZZD draws a clear distinction between the recoverability of a debt and the 
enforceability of a liability, or default on the part of the debtor. The recoverability 
of a debt (or liability) refers to the abstract possibility of the debt’s being 
recovered by the creditor. If the liability is subject to a time limit, in other words, 
if the parties have agreed a time limit upon the expiry of which the liability must 
be discharged, the liability becomes recoverable, and the limitation period starts to 
run, on the expiry of that time limit. If the liability is not subject to a time limit, in 
other words, if the parties have not agreed a time limit upon the expiry of which 
the liability must be discharged, the liability becomes recoverable, and the 
limitation period starts to run, upon accrual of the liability, as follows from 
Article 114(2) of the ZZD. Enforceability arises at the point when the debtor falls 
into default and the creditor is entitled to pursue the enforcement of his claim. If 
the liability is subject to a time limit, it becomes enforceable and the debtor falls 
into default upon expiry of that time limit (in the case of liabilities subject to a 
time limit, recoverability and enforceability, or default, arise at the same time – 
upon expiry of the time limit agreed between the parties). If the liability is not 
subject to a time limit, enforceability, or default on the part of the debtor, may not 
arise until after the debtor has been expressly ordered to pay by the creditor in 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-294/24  
 
6  
accordance with Article 84(2) of the ZZD (in other words, in the case of liabilities 
not subject to a time limit, recoverability arises upon accrual of the liability and 
default arises upon receipt of an order to pay by the debtor). Enforceability and 
default are significant because, once they have come into being, the debtor is 
charged default interest from the date following the date of default to the date of 
final settlement of the liability. 
9 The actions to be taken by the court present certain difficulties which, in the view 
of the adjudicating chamber, jeopardise the guarantee of effective remedies in an 
area governed by EU law, namely consumer protection. Article 31(1) of the 
Standard business terms for the Provision of Water and Wastewater Services to 
Consumers by the Municipality of Burgas Water Utility, provides that the water 
utility is to issue monthly invoices unless a different billing period has been 
expressly agreed. Article 31(2) of the standard business terms states, however, that 
consumers are obliged to pay the amounts owed for water and wastewater services 
used by them within 30 days of the date of issue of the invoice. The recoverability 
and enforceability of debts owed to water utilities are uniformly regulated in the 
standard business terms of utilities in all cities in the Republic of Bulgaria – Sofia, 
Plovdiv, Varna, Burgas and so on. Consequently, in the event that a consumer 
raises the objection that the debts owed to a water utility for services it has 
provided are time-barred, the national courts will proceed in exactly the same 
way, as follows. Account will be taken of Article 114 of the ZZD, which states 
that the limitation period starts to run on the date on which the debt becomes 
recoverable, and of the fact that, if a time limit for payment has been agreed 
between the parties, recoverability arises on the expiry of that time limit. In the 
present case, there is an agreed time limit, inasmuch as Article 31(2) of the 
standard business terms of water utilities provides that liabilities for services used 
must be paid within 30 days of the date of issue of the invoice. Taking into 
account that the water utility has issued an invoice and the time limit of 30 days 
from the date of its issue has expired, the courts will therefore assess whether the 
debt owed to the trader is wholly or partially time-barred. In principle, there is 
nothing to prevent parties from agreeing a time limit for the settlement of 
liabilities arising under a contract concluded between them, even in the form of 
standard business terms. If such a time limit has been agreed, the point at which 
those liabilities become recoverable, and the limitation period starts to run, is the 
date on which that time limit expires. The issue that puts consumers in an unequal 
position in the present case is the fact that it is agreed under the water utility’s 
standard business terms that that time limit starts to run from the date of issue of 
the invoice. Consequently, the debt owed to the trader becomes recoverable, and 
the limitation period for that debt starts to run, as from the issue of the invoice 
triggering the start of the 30-day time limit, and the limitation period does not start 
to run until that time limit has expired. In effect, therefore, the start of the 
limitation period is dependent on the conduct of the trader, a fact which represents 
a burden for the consumer, since it is possible and not uncommon for the trader, 
rather than issuing invoices monthly, when the monthly liability in question arises, 
as Article 31(1)(a) of the standard business terms of the Burgas Water Utility 
stipulates, to issue an invoice at a much later date and thus in effect to postpone 
ZADZHOVA 
 
7 
the limitation period applicable to debts owed to it. The adjudicating chamber is of 
the view that that raises doubts as to whether the term contained Article 31(2) of 
the standard business terms of the Burgas Water Utility may be unfair, since it 
allows traders to determine unilaterally when debts owed to them become 
recoverable and, therefore, when the limitation periods applicable to those debts 
start to run, to the detriment of consumers. That in turn calls for an interpretation 
by the Court of Justice of the European Union as to whether Article 31(2) of the 
standard business terms of the Burgas Water Utility may be unfair and whether it 
infringes Article 3 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair 
terms in consumer contracts (‘the Directive’)) and point 1(b) of the annex to 
Article 3 of that directive, inasmuch as the water supplier regularly fails to fulfil 
its obligation under Article 31(1) of the standard business terms of the Burgas 
Water Utility to issue invoices on a monthly basis and thereby infringes the 
consumers’ right, corresponding to that obligation, to receive a separate invoice 
for consumption each month. It is clear from the claim asserted by the Burgas 
Water Utility itself and from the invoices submitted in the present proceedings, 
that, in the present case, the invoices issued in the period from 25 August 2021 to 
25 May 2023 relate to liabilities that arose in early 2020, which is to say that those 
invoices were issued well after the liabilities in question arose (the liability arises 
monthly on the basis of the quantity of water consumed). 
10 The second issue raised by Article 31(2) of the standard business terms of the 
Burgas Water Utility has to do with the fact that, in postponing the time-barring of 
the principal debts owed to it, it also postpones the time-barring of the debts by 
way of default interest arising from them, since, in accordance with Article 119 of 
the ZZD, the extinguishment of a principal debt leads to the extinguishment of the 
ancillary debts arising from it, even if those are not yet time-barred. Consequently, 
the earlier extinguishment of the principal debts would have the effect of also 
extinguishing the debts by way of default interest. By contrast, the Bulgarian 
courts currently award default interest even on principal debts which would be 
time-barred if Article 31(2) of the standard business terms of the Burgas Water 
Utility proved to be an unfair term. 
11 The third issue raised by Article 31(2) of the standard business terms of the 
Burgas Water Utility has to do with the following. Currently, the water utility and 
the courts apply that term regardless of the fact that it may be unfair and proceed 
on the premiss that liabilities to pay for water and wastewater services which 
accrue to the expense of consumers are subject to a time limit, which is to say that, 
following the expiry of the agreed time limit, the consumer automatically falls 
into default, the creditor claims default interest on the principal sum from the date 
of default to the date of final settlement of the debt and the court awards that 
default interest. The latter fact significantly increases the financial burden on the 
consumer, inasmuch as, if the term contained in Article 31(2) of the standard 
business terms of the Burgas Water Utility (which lays down a time limit for 
performance that runs from the date of issue of an invoice by the trader) were 
regarded as being unfair, and that term were deemed to have been void as from the 
date of conclusion of the contract, the principal liability would not be subject to a 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-294/24  
 
8  
time limit, in accordance with Article 84(2) of the ZZD, and an order to pay 
would have to be issued to the debtor. Since, however, no order to pay has ever 
been issued to the debtor, the water utility’s applications for the payment of 
default interest would be unfounded, inasmuch as the consumer was not sent an 
order to pay and did not fall into default. No evidence of the water utility having 
issued any orders to pay to the consumers concerned has as yet been adduced in 
those cases, but the courts, proceeding on the premiss that, in accordance with the 
provision contained in Article 31(2) of the standard business terms of the Burgas 
Water Utility, the liability is subject to a time limit, and assuming that the 
consumer fell into default when that time limit expired, nonetheless award the 
default interest applied for. 
12 For the reasons set out above, the Rayonen sad Burgas (District Court, Burgas) 
takes the view that the correct resolution of the present dispute and the proper 
conduct of the further proceedings in the present case call for an interpretation of 
the relevant provisions of EU law.