Case C-670/25, Berakov: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 October 2025 – Eurobank Bulgaria AD
Date: 2025-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank charges, consumer credit, consumer protection, interest, pay, unfair terms of contract








C_202600286EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/286


26.1.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 October 2025 – ‘Eurobank Bulgaria’ AD


(Case C-670/25, Berakov
                (1)
)

(C/2026/286)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Party to the main proceedings


Applicant:
            ‘Eurobank Bulgaria’ AD

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling







1.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and, where applicable, also Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, (2) be interpreted as
precluding national legislation and national case-law which require a judicial panel to rule on a case pending before it in accordance with directions – where it is not clear whether those directions require the court that is bound by them to order enforcement on the basis of an unfair term – to the detriment of a consumer, without the lower court being granted any discretion on the merits, even if those directions are issued without explaining why the assessment by the court of first instance of the application of EU law, after all the considerations it had set out, was incorrect?










2.


Must Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (3) on credit agreements for consumers be interpreted as meaning that,
where the consumer credit agreement makes the interest on the credit dependent on the conclusion and performance of associated transactions with the seller or supplier granting the credit or with other persons designated by the seller or supplier (‘tying’), the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ includes the costs arising from those additional agreements, and must they be taken into account when calculating the annual percentage rate of charge of the credit?










3.


If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, must Article 19(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/48/EC be interpreted as
precluding national case-law according to which the costs arising from other agreements tied to the credit agreement cannot be taken into account when calculating the annual percentage rate of charge of the credit because they are not fixed in advance and may vary or because they depend on the consumer’s failure to fulfil obligations, which increases the interest rate? If those provisions do preclude such case-law: According to what criteria should those costs be taken into account when calculating the annual percentage rate of charge and, if the court is unable to establish the likely amount of such costs due to the limitations inherent in non-adversarial proceedings, should it be assumed that the actual annual percentage rate of charge is to be calculated on the basis of the interest costs that would be payable on the credit without any discounted treatment?










4.


Must Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and point 1(o) of the Annex to that directive be interpreted as
precluding national case-law according to which the restriction on the consumer’s right to choose a banking and insurance service provider – with the attendant risk of being exposed to an increased interest rate under a credit agreement concluded between the consumer and the seller or supplier – cannot constitute a criterion for assessing whether a term is unfair on the ground that it is contrary to good faith in commercial transactions, or must those provisions be interpreted in the sense that that assessment must take into account the bank’s interest in ensuring the creditworthiness of its debtors?










5.


Must Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that
a term in a consumer agreement which requires the consumer to transfer his or her wages, after receiving them, to a specific bank account is always unfair in view of employment protection standards and the standards in force under national law for the protection of wages and the manner of their payment, if the term leads to an increase in the contractual costs for the consumer, or must the unfairness be assessed and, if so, using what criteria?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

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

(3)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/286/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)