Case C-692/25, Varshets Estate Investment: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 October 2025 – Varshets Estate Investment OOD v V.P.M.
Date: 2025-10-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, claim, consumer credit, consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, injunction, judicial review, negotiable instrument, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence








C_202600293EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/293


26.1.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 October 2025 – ‘Varshets Estate Investment’ OOD v V.P.M.


(Case C-692/25, Varshets Estate Investment)

(C/2026/293)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant in the order for payment proceedings:
            ‘Varshets Estate Investment’ OOD

Debtor: V.P.M.

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 6 and Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) and Article 22(3) of Directive 2008/48/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding case-law under which the court has no possibility, in proceedings for an immediately enforceable order for payment based on a promissory note that has been transferred by endorsement in favour of a third party, to require evidence for the existence of a claim arising from a causal legal relationship, even though the court has reasonable grounds to suspect that the promissory note acts as security for an obligation arising from a consumer agreement and that suspicion is founded on information that is publicly available in the commercial register and on facts known to the court in its official capacity regarding the nature of the business activities undertaken by the payee of the promissory note (which consists in granting credits to consumers), it having to be borne in mind that there is a significant risk the debtor will not lodge an objection and also the fact that, in the enforcement proceedings, the court has no power to examine unfair terms and compliance with the two directives?










2.


Must Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 and Article 17 of Directive 2008/48/EC, as well as the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, be interpreted as permitting case-law under which an application for an order for payment, which is based on a promissory note transferred by endorsement to a third party who refuses to comply with the court’s requests and produce the consumer credit agreement on the basis of which the promissory note was issued and where the court has reasonable grounds to suspect that such agreement exists, must be regarded as breaching the consumer’s rights because (1) such a promissory note makes it very difficult for the consumer to exercise their consumer protection rights, since it will be difficult for the consumer to decide whether to lodge an objection, because it is hard for the consumer to determine under which agreement the consumer owes what amount to which creditor and the extent of that amount, and whether the consumer’s defences against the endorsee of the promissory note can be successfully pleaded at all in light of the national law which, in this case, entirely shifts the burden of proof to the detriment of the consumer; (2) the promissory note harbours a significant risk that the mandatory requirements of Article 17 of Directive 2008/48/EC are being circumvented, under which the consumer must be informed of a change in creditor and any defence can be pleaded by the consumer against the new creditor; (3) the promissory note is contrary to the principle of effective protection of consumer rights as it exposes the consumer to a significant risk of immediate compulsory enforcement without rights of defence and of examination of the agreement?










3.


Must Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 and the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and legal certainty be interpreted as permitting case-law under which, in the event of an application for an immediately enforceable order for payment based on a promissory note which has been transferred by endorsement to a third party and that third party refuses to comply with the court’s requests and produce the consumer credit agreement on the basis of which the promissory note was issued and where the court has reasonable grounds to suspect that such agreement exists, the court shall reject the application in its entirety and point out to the applicant that it may subsequently pay the fee due and bring legal action in respect of the same claim, all procedural consequences favourable to the creditor being maintained and the court, when examining the matter, observing the requirements imposed in the judgment of 7 November 2019, Profi Credit Polska, C-419/18 and C-483/18, EU:C:2019:930? (3)







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

(2)  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).

(3)  ECLI:EU:C:2019:930.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/293/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)