Case C-806/24, YETTEL BULGARIA: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 November 2024 – YETTEL BULGARIA EAD v FB
Date: 2024-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: artificial intelligence, consumer information, debt, invoicing, judicial review, mobile communication, provision of services, right to an effective remedy, telephone charges, unfair terms of contract








C_202501080EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1080


24.2.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 November 2024 – ‘YETTEL BULGARIA’ EAD v FB


(Case C-806/24, YETTEL BULGARIA)

(C/2025/1080)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:
            ‘YETTEL BULGARIA’ EAD

Defendant: FB

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 86(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the consumer has the right, within the meaning of Directives 2011/83/EU (2) and 93/13/EEC, (3) to know from the service provider how and with the aid of what elements [and] parameters automated decisions (invoices) were generated on the basis of data which the trader collected automatically in the context of a contract for the provision of mobile telecommunications services? Must Article 86(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, read in conjunction with Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the consumer has the right to know from the service provider what algorithm calculates the automatically generated invoices […] and what elements and parameters are fed into it? Must Article 86(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 be interpreted as applying to consumer contracts?










2.


Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted meaning that they are applicable in respect of an activity based on artificial intelligence [or] automated decisions within the meaning of Article 86 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689?










3.


Must Article 3(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU be interpreted as meaning that the protection of consumer rights is applicable in respect of systems which use artificial intelligence and generate automated decisions within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689?










4.


Must Article 86(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 38 of the Charter, and with the principle of effectiveness reflected in Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC and in Article 5 of Directive 2011/83/EU, be interpreted as permitting the court to demand from the trader the black box data, the source code and the algorithm relating to the way in which automated decisions are made under the consumer contract?










5.


Must Article 86(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 38 of the Charter, and with Directive 2011/83/EU, be interpreted as meaning that an automated decision generated by a trader under a contract with a consumer for mobile telecommunications services permits that automated decision to be reviewed by a human being, a judge, during real judicial proceedings? Must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that automated decisions […] are subject to human review by a judge in real judicial proceedings?










6.


Must recitals 7 and 8 and Article 95(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 – the AI Act – and Directive 2011/83/EU […] be interpreted as meaning that, where an automated decision-making system is operated and used […] in the consumer contract, lawyers or senior judicial officers […] with high moral and ethical standards must be involved in order to guarantee a transparent, effective and human-centric information system which takes account of fundamental rights?










7.


Must Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC and point 1(e) of the Annex to that directive be interpreted precluding a trader from invoicing compensation for termination of contract where the contract was terminated on the grounds of non-payment by the consumer […] but will be reinstated, and mobile telecommunications services resumed, upon subsequent payment […]?










8.


Must the expression 
                        ‘fails to fulfil his obligation’ within the meaning of point 1(e) of the Annex to Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning non-payment by the consumer of amounts which were generated by an automated system and represent automated decision-making (ADM), where the consumer was not informed of the way in which the amounts were calculated?










9.


Must Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 2011/83/EU and Article 5(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that the requirement regarding ‘plain, intelligible’ or ‘clear and comprehensible’ language also applies to subsequent contracts, annexes and invoices arising from a consumer contract and generated by means of artificial intelligence or another automated system without human intervention (ADM)?










10.


Must Article 5(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC and Article 86(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 be interpreted as meaning that the automatically generated invoices arising from a consumer contract […] must be written in plain, intelligible language and the consumer has the right to demand an explanation from the trader as to how and by what algorithm the decision was made?










11.


Must Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU (‘the Consumer Rights Directive’) and Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as not precluding the trader from calculating a sum in compensation for termination of a contract (on the grounds of non-payment under the contract) on the basis of the standard monthly subscription fee and not on the basis of the promotional subscription fee, even though the parties agreed on payment of the promotional subscription fee until the end of the contract and the trader itself did not want to conclude a contract with a standard subscription fee?










12.


Must [the expression] 
                        ‘a disproportionately high sum in compensation’ within the meaning of point 1(e) of the Annex to Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as representing the difference between the promotional subscription fee and the standard monthly subscription fee in a contract, calculated for the number of months remaining until the end of the [originally agreed] term of the terminated contract?










13.


Must Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as not permitting a trader to calculate amounts for fractions of the accounting periods where the parties contractually agreed amounts for whole accounting periods?










14.


Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC and the principle of effectiveness […] be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a consumer may be ordered to bear part of the costs of the proceedings where […] the trader did not explain to the consumer in a clear [and] comprehensible manner how and by what algorithm the automated decision is made and the trader only provided that explanation […] in the course of the judicial proceedings brought against the consumer […] on the grounds of non-payment of amounts due under the contract?










15.


Must Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 2011/83/EU be interpreted as precluding a mobile telecommunications operator from claiming a sum in compensation […] for a contract terminated early on the grounds of non-payment by the consumer […] which is based on the standard monthly subscription fee even though the trader and the consumer agreed a (lower) promotional monthly subscription fee for the term of the contract?










16.


Must Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 2011/83/EU be interpreted as precluding a mobile telecommunications operator from claiming a sum in compensation […] for a contract terminated early on the grounds of non-payment by the consumer […] which includes the difference between the standard monthly subscription fee and the promotional monthly subscription fee […] for the time from termination [of the contract until the end of the agreed term]?










17.


Must Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 2011/83/EU be interpreted as precluding a mobile telecommunications operator from claiming a sum in compensation for [single] days even though the parties agreed a monthly subscription fee by way of compensation? Is the trader permitted to claim a sum in compensation based on a monthly subscription fee for [single] days and not for a month?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (OJ L 2024/1689).

(2)  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 (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

(3)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1080/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)