Provisional text

10 July 2025 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 3(1) – Contract for the provision of water and wastewater services – Date on which the claim becomes due and the starting-point of the limitation period of the claim – Requirement to present the reasons justifying the need for an interpretation of certain provisions of European Union law by the Court of Justice – Lack of sufficient details – Inadmissibility )

In Case C‑294/24 [Zadzhova], (i)

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Rayonen sad – Burgas (District Court, Burgas, Bulgaria), made by decision of 24 April 2024, received at the Court on 24 April 2024, in the proceedings

‘Vodosnabdyavane i kanalizatsia’ EAD

ED,

THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of N. Jääskinen, President of the Chamber, M. Condinanzi and R. Frendo (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: L. Medina,

Registrar: R. Stefanova-Kamisheva, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 5 March 2025,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–‘Vodosnabdyavane i kanalizatsia’ EAD, by G.D. Dobrev, Z.I. Gadzheva and L.I. Todev, advokati, and T. Mirchev,

–the Bulgarian Government, by T. Mitova and R. Stoyanov, acting as Agents,

–the European Commission, by P. Kienapfel, G. Koleva, N. Nikolova and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

makes the following

1This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

2The request has been made in proceedings between ‘Vodosnabdyavane i kanalizatsia’ EAD (‘VIK’) and ED concerning a failure to pay water consumption invoices relating to a building owned by ED.

The legal framework

3Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 states:

‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.’

Bulgarian law

4The first paragraph of Article 84 of the Zakon za zadalzheniyata i dogovorite (Law on obligations and contracts, DV No 275 of 22 November 1950) (‘the ZZD’) provides:

‘Where a time limit is fixed for the performance of the obligation, the debtor shall be in default at the end of that period …’

5Under Article 114 of the ZZD:

‘The limitation period shall begin to run from the day when the claim becomes due.

…’

The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

6VIK provides its customers with water and wastewater services in the city of Burgas (Bulgaria) on the basis of individual contracts containing standard terms and conditions governing the provision of those services to users (‘the standard terms and conditions’).

7On 27 October 2023, VIK brought an action before the Rayonen sad – Burgas (District Court, Burgas, Bulgaria), which is the referring court, seeking an order that ED, a consumer, pay certain invoices for the consumption of water relating to a building owned by ED, located in the city of Burgas.

8In particular, VIK claims that ED is liable to pay the principal sum of 693.56 Bulgarian leva (BGN) (approximately EUR 350) for the consumption of water between 17 March 2020 and 12 May 2023 and invoiced during the period from 25 August 2021 to 25 May 2023, together with statutory interest from the date the action was brought before the referring court until final payment of the claim, and compensation for late payment for the period from 25 September 2021 to 24 October 2023 of BGN 81.30 (approximately EUR 41).

9VIK maintains that it issued invoices for the consumption period in question which were not paid by ED within the prescribed period of 30 days laid down in Article 33(2) of the standard terms and conditions.

10ED disputes the amount of the sums claimed and raises, inter alia, a plea based on the extinction of the alleged claim following the expiry of the three-year limitation period.

11The referring court observes that VIK is required, under Article 33(1) of the standard terms and conditions, to issue monthly invoices for water and wastewater services provided to its customers. Under Article 33(2) of the standard terms and conditions, the consumer is required to pay the amounts due within 30 days from the date the invoice is issued.

12In addition, under Article 42 of the standard terms and conditions, a consumer who fails to discharge his or her obligation to pay within the prescribed period is liable to pay to VIK compensation equivalent to the amount of the statutory interest.

13The referring court notes that, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 84 and Article 114 of the ZZD, on expiry of the period of 30 days from the issue of the invoice by VIK, the claim in respect of that invoice becomes payable and the limitation period starts to run.

14It follows that the determination of the starting point of that period depends on VIK’s conduct and, more specifically, on the issuing of invoices. VIK regularly fails to comply with the requirements under Article 33(1) of the standard terms and conditions, which require it to issue monthly invoices.

15The referring court expresses doubts as to the possible unfairness of Article 33(2) of the standard terms and conditions, since it allows VIK to determine unilaterally, on the basis of the date the invoice is issued, whether its claims and the related default interest are due, and, consequently, the starting point of the limitation period concerning those claims.

16In those circumstances, the Rayonen sad – Burgas (District Court, Burgas) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must Article 3(1) of [Directive 93/93] be interpreted as meaning that a term such as that laid down in Article [33](2) of the standard business terms of the [Burgas water and wastewater 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 and wastewater utility], [are] 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?’

Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling

17According to the Court’s settled case-law, the procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the Court provides the national courts with the points of interpretation of EU law which they need in order to decide the disputes before them (judgment of 22 February 2024, Ente Cambiano società cooperativa per azioni, C‑660/22, EU:C:2024:152, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).

18Since the order for reference serves as the basis for that procedure, the national court is required, in the order for reference itself, to set out the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings and to provide the necessary explanation of the reasons for the choice of the provisions of EU law which it seeks to have interpreted and of the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the proceedings pending before it (judgment of 22 February 2024, Ente Cambiano società cooperativa per azioni, C‑660/22, EU:C:2024:152, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).

19It should also be noted that questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court of Justice to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court of Justice may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought is unrelated to the actual facts of the main action or its object, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court of Justice does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 8 April 2025, European Public Prosecutor’s Office (Judicial review of procedural acts), C‑292/23, EU:C:2025:255, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).

20By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a term contained in the standard terms and conditions of a contract under which the consumer is required to pay the amounts due within 30 days from the date the invoice is issued causes, to the detriment of that consumer, a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations.

21It must be pointed out that the referring court has not explicitly stated the reasons why the interpretation of the provision referred to in the question referred for a preliminary ruling is necessary in order to resolve the dispute in the main proceedings.

22It is apparent both from the file before the Court and from the arguments presented at the hearing before the Court that the dispute in the main proceedings concerns the application of the seller or supplier’s contractual obligation, laid down in Article 33(1) of the standard terms and conditions, to issue monthly invoices. The referring court’s doubts do not relate to Article 33(1) of the standard terms and conditions, but rather to paragraph 2 thereof, with the result that it is quite obvious that the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings bears no relation to the requested interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13.

23Consequently, the reference for a preliminary ruling must be declared to be inadmissible.

24It should, however, be borne in mind that the referring court retains the right to submit a new request for a preliminary ruling by providing the Court with all the information enabling it to give a ruling (judgment of 22 February 2024, Ente Cambiano società cooperativa per azioni, C‑660/22, EU:C:2024:152, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

Costs

25Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby declares:

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad – Burgas (District Court, Burgas, Bulgaria) made by decision of 24 April 2024 is inadmissible.

[Signatures]

—

Language of the case: Bulgarian.

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