Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:102
Date: 2025-02-12
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Economic and monetary policy;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-784/22 – 1 
Case C-784/22 
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:  
30 December 2022 
Referring court:  
Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
16 December 2022 
Applicant:  
Solvay Sodi AD 
Defendant:  
Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia ‘Darzhaven rezerv i 
voennovremenni zapasi’ 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The dispute between the parties concerns the lawfulness of an order concerning 
the establishment of emergency stocks issued on 12 April 2021 by the Zamestnik-
predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia ‘Darzhaven rezerv i voennovremenni zapasi’ 
(Vice-President of the State Agency ‘State Reserves and Wartime Stocks’). 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1) In a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which a Member State opts to 
impose stockholding obligations on economic operators in order to comply with 
its obligation under Article 3 of Directive 2009/119, must the concept of 
‘economic operator’ in Article 8 of Directive 2009/119 be interpreted as including 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-784/22 
 
2  
a company established in the national territory which, during the preceding 
calendar year, imported one of the energy products listed in Chapter 3.4 of 
Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 (in the present case: petroleum coke) 
into the territory of the Member State, if it uses that energy product solely as a 
fuel and not as a raw material for manufacturing petroleum products and does not 
offer it for sale on the market for crude oil and petroleum products? 
2) What circumstances must a Member State take into account in its legislation 
when determining the status of a person as an ‘economic operator’ which is 
subject to the stockholding obligations? In determining what constitutes an 
‘economic operator’ within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 2009/119, must 
the Member State take into account, in particular, the economic activity of a 
company in the sense that it must include the importation, trade or use of the 
petroleum product concerned in order for it to be possible to oblige the company 
to maintain emergency stocks of that product? 
3) In a case such as that in the main proceedings – in which a Member State 
expressly limits, by means of a statutory provision (Article 2(1) of the Zakon za 
zapasite ot neft i neftoprodukti (Law on stocks of crude oil and petroleum 
products; ‘the ZZNN’)), the types of petroleum products to be stocked, 
maintained, replaced, used, replenished and inspected to the following four 
categories: 1. motor gasoline; 2. gas oils, kerosene-type jet fuels and diesel fuel; 
3. heavy fuel oil; 4. liquefied petroleum gas – is it permissible for that Member 
State, in determining the group of economic operators which are required to 
maintain stocks and in determining the quantities of stocks which those economic 
operators are required to maintain, also to include importers of (all the) other 
petroleum products referred to in Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) 
No 1099/2008? 
4) Is national legislation compatible with the objective of Directive 2009/119 
referred to in Article 1 and recitals 3, 17 and 33 of that directive and with 
Article 20(1) of that directive (under which Member States are required to ensure 
that some or all of their emergency stocks can be released quickly, effectively and 
transparently) and with Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union (‘freedom to conduct a business’) where, under that national 
legislation, an economic operator which does not import, buy, sell, use for 
processing purposes or otherwise use in its own production processes a particular 
petroleum product of which the Member State wishes to maintain emergency 
stocks in order to comply with its obligation under Article 3 of Directive 2009/119 
(in the present case: heavy fuel oil) is obliged to establish stocks of that very 
petroleum product (heavy fuel oil), whereby, in order to comply with its 
obligation, the economic operator must operate on a market for petroleum 
products (in the present case: for heavy fuel oils) which is alien to its economic 
activity and must establish stocks of products for which it has no use and which it 
does not use for its activities? 
SOLVAY SODI 
 
3 
5) Is national legislation such as that at issue in the present case compatible with 
the fundamental freedom of free movement of goods under EU law, and in 
particular with Articles 30 and 34 TFEU, where it imposes on persons who import 
energy products other than liquid fuels (in the present case: petroleum coke) onto 
the Bulgarian market the obligation to establish and maintain emergency stocks of 
petroleum products (liquid fuels such as fuel oil/heavy fuel oil, gasoline, 
gas/diesel oil) which are not the object of their economic activity (which they 
neither import nor process nor trade in), for which they have no storage capacity 
and which, in order to fulfil their stockholding obligations, they must borrow or 
purchase from other private undertakings operating in the oil industry, with the 
result that they are required to enter and operate on the market for petroleum 
products[?] 
6) Is the principle of proportionality respected and, in particular, is the necessary 
balance between the public interest and the individual interest achieved where an 
economic operator which does not import, purchase, sell, process or otherwise use 
for its production processes the petroleum product designated in respect of that 
economic operator (in the present case: heavy fuel oil) is subject to the obligation 
to establish and maintain emergency stocks of that petroleum product in a 
substantial quantity which exceeds the Member State’s average annual 
consumption of that product (heavy fuel oil) and, in order to comply with that 
obligation, the economic operator is required to incur substantial expenditure 
which jeopardises its economic and financial stability and exposes it to a 
significant risk of enforcement proceedings against its assets? 
7) Is national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings compatible 
with Article 1 of Directive 2009/119, in conjunction with Article 2(i) and (j), 
Article 3(1) and Article 20(1), (3) and (5) thereof, where it provides that 
emergency stocks are to be established in respect only of certain liquid petroleum 
products (gasoline, kerosene, gas/diesel oil, fuel oil and liquefied petroleum gas), 
but economic operators are also obliged to establish and maintain such stocks 
where they use other types of energy products within the meaning of Chapter 3.4 
of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 by way of importation or intra-
Community acquisition (in the present case: petroleum coke), with the result that 
those economic operators are obliged to hold stocks of the types of product 
referred to in the national law but would have no possibility in the future of using 
those emergency stocks because they do not use the energy products concerned? 
8) Is a system of penalties for breaches of the national rules on the obligation to 
establish emergency stocks which provides that economic operators which breach 
the obligation to establish emergency stocks are to be subject to a fine in a 
significant amount per tonne of the quantities to be stocked which are the subject 
of the breach, before a court has ruled on the lawfulness of the administrative act 
imposing the obligation to maintain emergency stocks, consistent with the 
principles of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness in accordance with 
recital 11 and Article 21 of Directive 2009/119? 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-784/22 
 
4  
Is a Member State required to provide, in its national system of penalties, for the 
duty of the competent authority to examine each separate breach individually and, 
in determining the amount of the specific fine, to take into account all the facts 
and circumstances relevant to the breach and the possible consequences of the 
breach in the light of the objective of the law, including the circumstance that the 
failure to comply with the obligation to establish and maintain emergency stocks 
is due to the fact that the Member State does not have the storage capacity needed 
to stock the stipulated quantities of the product concerned (heavy fuel oil) and 
that, in order to comply with the obligation imposed on it, the economic operator 
is required to incur substantial expenditure which jeopardises its financial stability 
and exposes it to the risk of enforcement proceedings? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Article 122 TFEU 
Council Directive 2009/119/EC of 14 September 2009 imposing an obligation on 
Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum 
products (‘the Directive’), recitals 11 and 33 and Article 1, Article 2(i) and (j) and 
Articles 3 to 5, 8, 20 and 21 
Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
22 October 2008 on energy statistics, Article 2(d) and points 3.4.17, 3.4.18 and 
3.4.23 of Chapter 3.4 of Annex A 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 16, 17(1), and 
52(1) and (2) 
Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights: explanations relating 
to Article 16 and to Article 17 
As far as the referring court is aware, the provisions of the Directive have not been 
the subject of interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Zakon za zapasite ot neft i neftoprodukti (Law on stocks of crude oil and 
petroleum products; ‘the ZZNN’), Article 1(1), Article 2(1) and (4), Article 3(3) 
and (4), Article 4(2) to (5), Article 7(1), Article 8(2), Article 12(1) to (4) and (11), 
Article 14(1) to (3) and (6), Article 17(1) and (2), Article 18(1) and (2), 
Article 21(1) to (3) and (11), Article 23(1) to (3), Article 24(1), Article 30(1); 
Dopalnitelni razporedbi na ZZNN (Supplementary provisions to the ZZNN), 
Paragraph 1, points 8 to 12 
Zakon za energetikata (Law on energy; ‘the ZE’), Article 128 
SOLVAY SODI 
 
5 
Naredba Nr. 11 ot 10.06.2004 za rezervi ot goriva (Regulation No 11 of 10 June 
2004 on fuel stocks), adopted by the Minister for Energy and Energy Resources, 
Article 2(1) and (2), Article 3(1) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 In 2021, the applicant purchased and imported 295 843.939 tonnes of petroleum 
coke, which it declared to the Darzhavna agentsia ‘Darzhaven rezerv i 
voennovremenni zapasi’ (State Agency ‘State Reserves and Wartime Stocks’; ‘the 
Agency’) in accordance with Article 4(2) of the ZZNN. The quantities of 
petroleum coke imported by the applicant are intended to serve as the main fuel 
for the cogeneration of heat and power in a combined heat and power plant. It is 
neither submitted nor are there any indications that, in 2021, the company was 
engaged in the import or intra-Community acquisition of any other type of product 
as defined in Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on energy statistics 
(‘Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008’) or was active with fuel oil. 
2 In connection with the abovementioned intra-Community acquisition of petroleum 
coke in 2021, the company was served on 5 May 2022 with the contested order 
obliging it to establish, maintain and replace certain emergency stocks at its own 
cost and with its own resources. 
3 The applicant disputes that it is an ‘entity obliged to hold stocks’ within the 
meaning of the ZZNN and the Directive and challenges the obligation, imposed 
on it by the contested decision, to establish and maintain emergency stocks of 
heavy fuel oil (heavy fuel oil within the meaning of point 3.4.18 of Annex A to 
Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008), since it does not import heavy fuel oil or use it in 
any way, does not trade in heavy fuel oil and does not place on the market or 
release for free circulation any liquid petroleum products (petroleum products or 
liquid fuels), including heavy fuel oil. 
4 In addition to petroleum coke, the company also uses diesel oil (light heating oil 
within the meaning of point 3.4.17 of Annex A to Regulation [(EC)] 
No 1099/2008) as an additional fuel in a quantity of approximately 300 tonnes per 
year for the purposes of production in the combined heat and power plant. 
5 As an energy company engaged in the cogeneration of heat and power, the 
company is obliged to maintain emergency stocks of fuel oil under the ZE and 
Regulation No 11 of 10 June 2004 on fuel stocks, adopted by the Minister for 
Energy and Energy Resources on the basis of Article 85 and 128 of the ZE. By 
virtue of the abovementioned provisions, the applicant held stocks of petroleum 
coke and diesel oil, which it uses in the course of its economic activities. The 
stockholding period for fuel oil under the ZE coincides in part with the 
stockholding period for emergency stocks under the ZZNN. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-784/22 
 
6  
6 The company does not have a registered storage facility for emergency stocks of 
crude oil and petroleum products as required by Article 38 of the ZZNN and is not 
registered as a holder in the Agency’s register in accordance with point 4(c) of 
Article 7(1) of the ZZNN, and it therefore does not have the status of a ‘holder’ as 
defined in the ZZNN. 
7 The applicant submits that the obligation imposed on it to establish and maintain 
the quantities of fuel oil specified in the order as emergency stocks constituted a 
significant financial burden; the company was not in a position to purchase 
53 422.256 tonnes of fuel oil. According to the applicant, the purchase of those 
emergency stocks would worsen its financial capacity and entail the risk of it no 
longer being able to meet and fulfil its financial obligations in the future. 
8 In order to comply with its obligation, the company would either have to purchase 
the fuel oil or delegate the obligation to another economic operator against 
payment, but this was objectively impossible, since there was insufficient storage 
capacity for fuel oil stocks in the national territory, and it was not feasible to 
delegate the stockholding obligation to another Member State of the European 
Union due to the lack of sufficient availability of petroleum products. 
9 The company also objects to the quantity of fuel oil to be stocked. The quantity of 
stocks to be established and held by it was comparable to the country’s total 
annual consumption of fuel oil in 2021. At the hearing, the applicant stated that, in 
the course of the pending proceedings, monthly checks were made as to whether it 
had complied with the obligation imposed by the contested order. On 
29 November 2022, the Agency issued an administrative penalty order against the 
company for an administrative offence under Article 17(1) of the ZZNN, 
imposing a fine of 26 711 128 leva (BGN) (twenty-six million seven hundred and 
eleven thousand one hundred and twenty-eight BGN) on the company for breach 
of the stockholding obligation imposed on it by the order. 
10 The obligation of Solvay Sodi AD to establish emergency stocks arose by 
operation of law (Article 23(2) of the ZZNN), as it imported an energy product 
within the meaning of Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008, 
namely petroleum coke, in 2021. Solvay Sodi AD indicated that activity for the 
year 2021 as follows in a declaration pursuant to Article 4(2) of the ZZNN: 
18 987 tonnes in stock on 1 January 2021, 295 844 tonnes imported under the 
import scheme, 15 701 tonnes in stock on 31 December 2021. In accordance with 
Article 23(2) of the ZZNN, the level of emergency stocks to be held by Solvay 
Sodi AD was determined in proportion to the share of Solvay Sodi AD in the total 
share of all entities obliged to hold stocks in the country’s total net imports and 
intra-Community acquisitions for the previous calendar year. 
11 In connection with the abovementioned intra-Community acquisitions of 
lubricating oils in 2021, the company was served on 28 April 2022 with the 
contested order concerning the establishment of emergency stocks, which was 
issued by the Vice-President of the Agency and by which Solvay Sodi AD was 
SOLVAY SODI 
 
7 
ordered, on the basis of Articles 12 and 23 of the ZZNN, to establish and maintain 
or to organise and finance, at its own expense and using its own resources, the 
emergency stocks of heavy fuel oil specified in Article 2(1) of the ZZNN, in the 
amount of 53 422.256 tonnes (fifty-three thousand four hundred and twenty-two 
tonnes and two hundred and fifty-six kilograms), for a period of one year, namely 
from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023. 
12 On 19 May 2022 (within the statutory time limit), the company brought an action 
against that order, thereby instituting the administrative proceedings before the 
Administrativen sad Varna (Administrative Court, Varna, Bulgaria). The company 
takes the view that it is not obliged to establish or maintain the emergency stocks 
of heavy fuel oil which are specified in the order, and it seeks the annulment of 
the order on the ground that it is unlawful for a number of reasons. In the 
application initiating proceedings, the unlawfulness of the order is based, inter 
alia, on the grounds that the company was wrongly designated as an entity obliged 
to hold stocks, that it lacks the financial capacity to purchase the quantity of heavy 
fuel oil specified in the order, that it lacks the facilities for storing heavy fuel oil 
and that it is impossible for it to comply with the stockholding obligation within 
the specified period. These objections are related to the assessment to be carried 
out by the court as to the lawfulness of the application of EU law, in particular in 
the transposition of Directive 2009/119/EC into national law by the ZZNN. 
13 The expert’s report obtained in the present case showed that the defendant did not 
make an arithmetical error in the calculation according to the formula used to 
determine the quantity of emergency stocks to be established by the applicant 
pursuant to Article 2(1) of the ZZNN, in the amount of 53 422.256 tonnes, that is 
to say, that the quantity was calculated correctly. 
14 The company’s economic activities do not involve any dealings in heavy fuel oils, 
and that is the case in respect of both 2021 and the present time. For its 
production, the applicant uses motor gasoline (code 17, 26 tonnes), diesel fuel for 
means of transport (code 20, 71 tonnes), petroleum coke (code 30, 258 918 
tonnes), gas oils for heating purposes and other gas oils (code 22, 202 tonnes) and 
liquefied gas mixtures (code 25, 1 tonne). 
15 The company has storage facilities with a much smaller capacity, which are not 
designed to store 53 422.256 tonnes of heavy fuel oil. 
16 The company’s activities do not involve any dealings in heavy fuel oils, gas oils, 
motor gasoline and/or diesel fuel, and that is the case in respect of both 2020 and 
the present time. The company does not possess the emergency stock of heavy 
fuel oil specified in the order; it would either have to purchase it or have to 
delegate the obligation to another economic operator against payment. 
17 The company does not have a storage facility for emergency stocks of crude oil 
and petroleum products which is registered in accordance with Article 38 of the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-784/22 
 
8  
ZZNN, in particular for the abovementioned petroleum products, and it therefore 
does not have the status of ‘stockholder’ within the meaning of the ZZNN. 
18 The establishment and maintenance by the company itself of emergency stocks of 
heavy fuel oil in the quantity specified in the order entails a significant financial 
burden for it and a need for technological time for implementing the procedure for 
the registration of a petroleum product storage facility. This was also established 
by an expert in a court-commissioned expert economic report and by the 
statements he made at the hearing. 
19 According to the expert’s report obtained in the case, the quantities of the 
emergency stocks of heavy fuel oil to be established and maintained by the 
company in accordance with the order were calculated according to the methods 
prescribed in the Directive and the ZZNN. 
20 The applicant submits that it contacted the heavy fuel oil stockholders registered 
with the Agency to inquire about free storage capacity with a view to being able to 
rent available holding capacity and purchasing or borrowing the emergency stocks 
imposed on it and holding it in the warehouses of those stockholders. The 
applicant infers from the correspondence which it has had with them that the 
national territory does not have storage capacity of the magnitude sought by 
Solvay Sodi AD. 
21 According to the defendant, on 24 June 2022, the stockholders notified the 
Agency of available storage capacities for heavy fuel oil in the amount of 
65 156.000 tonnes, of which 30 000.000 tonnes were for FENIKS OYL TREYD 
EOOD. The defendant submits that that information was received by the TD DR 
(Teritorialna Direktsia ‘Darzhaven rezerv’, ‘State Reserves’ Regional Directorate) 
Pleven, the TD DR Burgas and the TD DR Varna, which summarised it and 
forwarded it to the Agency’s central administration. The defendant submits that a 
third party, namely LOTUS OYL TREYD EOOD, informed Solvay Sodi AD on 
16 May 2022 that it had the possibility to store part of the emergency stocks 
imposed on Solvay Sodi AD, in the amount of between 3 000 and 8 000 tonnes, 
and that it could sell Solvay Sodi AD the heavy fuel oil with a repurchase option 
at the end of the stockholding period. The defendant further submits that another 
third party, namely LUKOYL Neftohim Burgas AD, had offered to hold for the 
applicant, as a service, emergency stocks in the amount of 1 500 tonnes in the 
form of heavy fuel oil and the remaining 53 422.256 tonnes in the form of diesel 
oil. 
22 According to the defendant, neither the ZZNN nor the regulations adopted to 
implement it require that entities obliged to hold stocks establish their emergency 
stocks on the premises of only one warehouse keeper or only in the form of one 
single type of petroleum product. In order to comply with its obligation to 
maintain emergency stocks of heavy fuel oil, Solvay Sodi AD was able to avail 
itself of the abovementioned possibilities and to make use of the available storage 
capacity of FENIKS OYL TREYD EOOD for 30 000.000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil 
SOLVAY SODI 
 
9 
and to take up the offer of LOTUS OYL TREYD EOOD to store 3 000 to 8 000 
tonnes. With regard to the remaining amount of emergency stocks, the entity 
obliged to hold stocks had the following possibilities: 
– to submit an application pursuant to Article 21(11) of the ZZNN to 
replace part of the quantities of heavy fuel oil which it is obliged to 
stock with gas oil or motor gasoline and/or diesel fuel; 
– to contractually delegate, in accordance with Article 18(1), point 2, of 
the ZZNN, the establishment and holding of part of the imposed 
quantities of emergency stocks (up to 50%), in its own name and for its 
own account, to economic operators and/or holders that can provide 
crude oil or petroleum products and/or have free storage capacities for 
emergency stocks in other Member States of the European Union. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
23 The order contested before the national court obliged the company, which had 
made intra-Community receipts of petroleum coke in 2021, to establish and 
maintain emergency stocks of heavy fuel oil in the amount of 53 422.256 tonnes 
for the period from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023. Thus, an economic operator 
which imports one specific type of petroleum product was obliged to procure and 
store another type of petroleum product. 
24 For the purpose of producing soda ash and bicarbonate of soda, the company 
purchased, in 2021, petroleum coke from its European suppliers from Belgium, 
Germany, Italy and other countries, which it used instead of coal. Due to the 
supplies made, the Agency’s contested order imposed on it the obligation to 
establish and maintain a substantial quantity (53 422.256 tonnes) of emergency 
stocks in the form of heavy fuel oil until 1 July 2022. 
25 The applicant does not have a registered warehouse for emergency stocks, as 
required under the ZZNN, and does not carry out any economic activities – 
import, storage, trade or other activities – involving heavy fuel oils. The company 
has not complied with its obligation to establish and maintain emergency stocks. 
The costs of renting storage facilities and procuring the fuel which would be 
incurred in the event of implementation in the national territory would constitute 
an extraordinary burden for the applicant. Furthermore, during the proceedings 
before the national court, checks were carried out with respect to the breach of the 
stockholding obligation imposed by the order, and administrative acts were issued 
to determine the relevant breaches. As things stand at present, an administrative 
penalty order of 29 November 2022 imposing a fine of BGN 26 711 128 (twenty-
six million seven hundred and eleven thousand one hundred and twenty-eight 
BGN) on the company has been issued for an administrative offence under 
Article 17(1) of the ZZNN. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-784/22 
 
10  
26 Doubts arise with respect to the interpretation of EU law, with the result that, first, 
it must be clarified whether EU law must be interpreted as precluding national 
legislation, such as the Bulgarian legislation, which provides that a person is 
obliged to establish emergency stocks of one type of energy product (heavy fuel 
oil) because they carry out an economic activity (import/intra-Community 
acquisition) with another type of petroleum product, such as petroleum coke. 
27 Under the national law, persons who have imported or brought into the territory of 
the country on an intra-Community basis any of the energy products listed in 
Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 during the calendar 
year in question are obliged to establish emergency stocks. However, the types of 
products for which stocks are to be established are limited in the national law to 
those referred to in Article 2(1) of the ZZNN (crude oil and four types of 
petroleum products). Accordingly, Bulgarian legislation provides that a person 
who has imported energy products listed in Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation 
(EC) No 1099/2008 during the previous calendar year must establish emergency 
stocks of one of the products listed in Article 2(1) of the ZZNN. 
28 In particular, Article 12(11) of the ZZNN provides that the import, and/or supply 
from intra-Community acquisitions, of petroleum coke triggers the obligation to 
establish a stock of heavy fuel oil. This is also the situation in the present case, in 
which the company had imported and acquired on an intra-Community basis 
petroleum coke and was therefore obliged to establish a stock of heavy fuel oil 
without being permitted to establish a stock of petroleum coke. 
29 Consequently, in order to fulfil the obligation imposed on it, the company must 
procure heavy fuel oil, which it does not possess. It also does not have the 
necessary authorisation as a warehouse keeper to be able lawfully to store that fuel 
independently (without paying a third-party warehouse keeper). Furthermore, 
under the ZZNN, the company is not entitled to demand that the quantities of 
heavy fuel oil which it is obliged to stock be replaced by petroleum coke. 
30 At the same time, Directive 2009/119, which is transposed by the ZZNN, is by no 
means limited to liquid fuels. According to the definition in Article 2(i) of that 
Directive, the term ‘oil stocks’ means stocks of the energy products listed in 
Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008, that is to say, of all the 
products referred to therein, and not only of liquid fuels. 
31 Second, in order for the referring court to rule correctly on the dispute before it, it 
is necessary to clarify the extent to which Member States are empowered to 
determine which types of products must be stocked and the extent of their powers 
vis-à-vis economic operators. In particular, the precise meaning of recitals 3, 17 
and 33, Article 2(i) and (j) and Articles 3, 4, 5, 20 and 21 of the Directive must be 
clarified in the light of the objectives of that Directive (Article 1) and the 
principles governing the application of EU law, in particular the principle of 
proportionality. 
SOLVAY SODI 
 
11 
32 Under the Directive, Member States are given the possibility, as a measure to 
fulfil their stockholding obligation, to impose obligations on economic operators 
(that is to say legal persons governed by private law) in that respect, thus 
including obligations to establish and maintain stocks. In that connection, the 
question arises as to whether it would be contrary to the objectives and spirit of 
the Directive and to the principle of proportionality under the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union to oblige an economic operator to 
organise a stock of an energy product with which it does not carry out or has not 
carried out any activities, which would naturally oblige the economic operator to 
purchase or borrow the required quantities (to delegate part of the obligation) and 
to store them in the prescribed manner (in warehouses approved for that purpose). 
Such an approach gives rise to a financial burden for the economic operator 
subject to the obligation (payment of the purchase price, purchase or rental of a 
storage facility for the stock, insurance pursuant to the ZZNN, payment of duties 
in accordance with Bulgarian tax legislation, and so forth, and also in the case 
where the obligation is delegated, in so far as the option of such delegation is 
available to the obliged party in the first place) and affects the internal market and 
competition rules, both in relation to the petroleum product traded by the 
economic operator and in relation to the petroleum product in respect of which 
stocks are to be held. 
33 The question arises as to whether the national law must take into account which 
type of energy product the person concerned has imported and whether that type is 
among the products for which stocks are to be established. By limiting the types 
of products for which stocks are to be established and obliging private entities to 
establish such emergency stocks, the national law does not ensure correspondence 
between the type of products imported by the person subject to the obligation and 
the type of product for which stocks are to be established. In addition, the national 
law does not take into account whether the person subject to the obligation uses 
the product for which stocks are to be established in the course of their business 
activities, whether they can provide the required quantities of that product, what 
administrative requirements must be fulfilled and what financial means would 
have to be used to achieve that objective and how this would affect that person’s 
financial situation and competitiveness. 
34 There are concerns with regard to the fact that the national law introduces 
financial (parafiscal) obligations for certain entities governed by private law, 
which is not the aim of the Directive. Directive 2009/119 is based on the principle 
that the authorisation of such interference with the legal rights of entities governed 
by private law is linked precisely to their ability to fulfil in kind the obligations 
imposed on them. In this way (and in accordance with the objective of the 
Directive, the principle of proportionality and the internal market and competition 
rules), an appropriate balance would be achieved between public interests (under 
EU law) and private interests, since the fulfilment in kind of the obligation to hold 
stocks of a given product by persons who in any event carry out an economic 
activity with that product would not present any particular difficulties for those 
persons. In that respect, the interference with the rights of the persons concerned 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-784/22 
 
12  
would be far less intense and would be in line with the requirements of recital 33 
of the Directive, in accordance with which such interference must take place 
through a transparent mechanism, while complying with the internal market and 
competition rules. 
35 The regime governing emergency stocks in the ZZNN deviates from the regime of 
the Directive and guarantees the establishment and use, where necessary, of 
emergency stocks only for a limited group of persons, namely the persons who use 
the petroleum products for which stocks are to be established (products under 
Article 2(1) of the ZZNN). Persons who use other petroleum products (e.g. 
petroleum coke) do not have that guarantee. On the one hand, the obligation is 
imposed on them to establish stocks of the products specified by law that they do 
not use in their activities (heavy fuel oil), but, in the event of a shortage of the 
very products that they use (petroleum coke, oils, bitumen, and so forth), they 
cannot rely on any guarantees or protection, as those products are not stocked 
under the ZZNN. 
36 Third, it is established in the present case that Solvay Sodi AD does not engage in 
any economic activity/trade in heavy fuel oil or other liquid petroleum products 
and is not in a position to place any stocks of liquid petroleum products (heavy 
fuel oil or otherwise) on the national market under normal market economy 
conditions on a wholesale or retail basis (Article 51 of the ZZNN), as it does not 
have capacity and resources (technical, organisational, etc.) to do so and does not 
have a licence for such activities involving liquid fuels/petroleum products, which 
is required under other national laws in that respect (ZARIDSNPNP [Zakon za 
administrativnoto regulirane na ikonomicheskite deynosti, svarzani s neft i 
produkti ot neften proizhod, Law on the administrative regulation of economic 
activities related to crude oil and petroleum products]; ZADS [Zakon za aktsizite i 
danachnite skladove, Law on excise duties and tax warehouses]; ZDDS [Zakon za 
danak varhu dobavenata stoynost, Law on value added tax]). Consequently, the 
establishment of stocks of heavy fuel oil or other liquid petroleum products which 
Solvay Sodi AD could neither use itself if need be (shortage or interruption of 
supply) nor freely sell to other users would amount to a situation in which the 
objective of establishing emergency stocks could not objectively be achieved at 
all, even if compliance with the obligation to establish such stocks were 
documented. 
37 Fourth, by requiring economic operators which import petroleum coke and/or 
acquire it on an intra-Community basis to establish emergency stocks of other 
petroleum products, the national law would create significant financial and 
logistical difficulties for those economic operators, which would constitute 
measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions and would restrict 
the free movement of the product petroleum coke in the country. Thus, the 
national market would be ‘closed off’ to a product supplied by trading partners in 
the European Union. 
SOLVAY SODI 
 
13 
38 In the present case, an interpretation of the relevant provisions of European Union 
law is relevant for determining whether the Directive must be interpreted as 
precluding national legislation under which persons who import only petroleum 
coke and do not engage in economic activity/trade in other energy products listed 
in Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 are required to 
establish emergency stocks of petroleum products and thereby engage in an 
economic activity which is new to them, and under which the type of the products 
for which stocks are to be established is limited and it is impermissible for the 
entity obliged to hold stocks to establish stocks of the petroleum product which it 
uses in its economic activity. 
39 The referring court relies on the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular its 
statements in Cases C-398/98 and C-212/09. Those judgments concern disputes 
relating to the fulfilment by the Greek State and the Portuguese State of 
obligations arising from acts of the Union. Although the facts of those cases are 
different from those of the present case, the statements of the Court of Justice 
concerning the adverse effects [of national measures] on the free movement of 
goods and capital, even where [they are] taken in the context of and with a view to 
compliance with the obligations to establish and maintain emergency stocks, are 
binding on the national courts and must be taken into account in ruling on the 
present dispute. 
40 There are concerns that the procedure introduced by the Bulgarian State to ensure 
stockholding, including the obligations imposed on the company by the contested 
order, infringes the rules of the internal market and of competition and the 
provisions of the Directive. From that point of view, any breach by the Bulgarian 
State of its obligation under the Directive would result from the fact that an 
improper State policy was pursued, and not from the conduct of the economic 
operators on which obligations were imposed which are objectively impossible to 
fulfil or at least excessively burdensome, are unable to achieve the objective of the 
law and infringe the principle of proportionality. 
41 The applicant takes the view that there is a suspicion that the national legislation 
infringes the Directive, that is to say, that the Directive has not been properly 
transposed into Bulgarian law. According to the applicant, a finding of such a 
conflict between the provisions of the Directive and the national law would affect 
the lawfulness of the contested order. In particular, it would have to be established 
in such a case that the order was issued on the basis of a national law which runs 
counter to, or does not correctly transpose, the Directive, which is an act of EU 
law. 
42 According to recital 11 of that Directive, petroleum products owned by companies 
facing a significant risk of enforcement proceedings against their assets should not 
be taken into account. The administrative penalty order issued on 29 November 
2022, imposing a fine of BGN 26 711 128 on the company for breach of the order 
of 28 April 2022, would suggest that there is a significant risk of enforcement 
proceedings, even before the review proceedings brought against the imposition of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-784/22 
 
14  
the obligation to establish and maintain stocks of heavy fuel oil in the amount of 
53 422.256 tonnes had been concluded. The expert’s report obtained shows that, 
due to financial constraints, the acquisition of the emergency stocks would worsen 
some of the most important factors for the company’s performance, namely 
liquidity, profitability and gearing. Furthermore, the expert stated that a risk of 
insolvency was not excluded if the payment terms could not be renegotiated. 
43 In the light of the foregoing, it must be found that the issuance of the order of 
29 November 2022 imposing a fine of BGN 26 711 128 on the company and the 
order of 28 April 2022 obliging it to establish and maintain stocks of heavy fuel 
oil in the amount of 53 422.256 tonnes, which it must purchase since it does not 
have them itself, creates ‘a significant risk of enforcement proceedings against 
[the company’s] assets’(recital 11 of the Directive), which is not the aim of the 
Directive. 
44 The requested interpretation of the Directive and of the provisions of the Directive 
referred to is intended to bring about the necessary clarity and unconditionality, 
that is to say, to establish what powers the national authorities have in determining 
stocks on an individual basis in order to achieve the relevant objectives, and thus 
the extent to which obligations can be imposed on economic operators. 
However, a request for a preliminary ruling is required to determine the precise 
meaning and content of the Directive, since, under Article 267 TFEU, the 
interpretation of acts of EU law comes within the competence of the Court of 
Justice of the European Union. 
45 In the present case, the interpretation of the Directive will enable the Bulgarian 
court to rule correctly on the dispute in so far as the national court has doubts as to 
the correct interpretation of the Directive.