Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/3633

14.7.2025

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 April 2025 – ‘Eurobank Bulgaria’ AD

(Case C-256/25, Lyulov

(C/2025/3633)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant in the order for payment proceedings:

‘Eurobank Bulgaria’ AD

Questions referred

Is the second sentence of Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that

a list of the types of payment obligations which can be imposed on the consumer in connection with performance of the contract, which the competent national court considers exhaustive, can be interpreted as a waiver on the part of the seller or supplier of his or her right to assert further monetary claims against the consumer in the event of non-performance of his or her obligations and, if so, under what conditions?

If the answer to the first question is that such terms can always or under certain conditions be interpreted as a waiver of rights, do Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts permit

(and, if so, under what conditions) national jurisprudence under which, in cases in which the general terms and conditions of a consumer credit contract (which, because the exclusion criteria set out in Article 2(f) of Directive 2008/48/EC are met, does not fall within the scope of that directive) exhaustively list the types of charges that the creditor may impose and it can be assumed that no other types of charges are permitted, general supplementary provisions of civil law concerning the extent of contractual liability can be applied to impose costs on the consumer (as compensation for non-performance, not as contractual charges) for the delivery of documents in connection with the exercise of the creditor’s rights, the amount of which is not determined in the contract from the outset, and is it necessary to ascertain whether other, more economical methods of effecting delivery were available to the creditor?

Are Article 19(1)(2) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and, where appropriate, Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as

precluding a national provision and national jurisprudence which oblige an adjudicating body to decide a case pending before it to the detriment of a consumer in line with the instructions of an adjudicating body of a court of higher instance, without the court of first instance being accorded discretion as to the merits and even where those instructions are issued without a statement of reasons as to why the court of first instance’s assessment regarding the application of EU law was incorrect?

—

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)

OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3633/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—