| Foto von Linus Nilsson auf Unsplash |
The recent ruling in APS Beta Bulgaria (C-337/23) provides another example of the Court of Justice reaffirming its established case law on consumer credit. However, it also illustrates a more subtle tendency: interpretative restraint.
This post argues that, while the Court preserves the continuity of its case law, its reluctance to provide detailed interpretative guidance risks undermining the aim of achieving a high level of consumer protection.
Facts of the Case
In the case at hand, consumer-borrowers concluded credit agreements with Easy Asset Management AD and Credissimo AD, with an annual percentage rate of charge (APRC) of approximately 40–50% and repayment terms between three and eighteen months. Under each agreement, consumers were required to provide security, including a guarantee, for which specific fees – exceeding 75% of the total amount repayable under the credit agreement – were charged. The guarantee was to be provided either by two natural persons meeting certain criteria, or by a bank or company selected or approved by the creditor. In each instance, the consumers tendered a guarantee from a company nominated by the creditor, including in one case a subsidiary of the creditor itself. Under Art. 147 ZZD (Bulgarian Law of Obligations and Contracts), a guarantor remains liable only if the creditor brings proceedings against the debtor within six months of the principal obligation becoming due. In the present case, guarantors satisfied the debt – except in one instance – after this period had expired, and subsequently assigned their claims to APS Beta Bulgaria EOD or Agentsia za kontrol na prosrocheni zadalzhenia AD, which then sought repayment from the consumers through order for payment proceedings. In these circumstances, the referring court (Sofia District Court) submitted questions for a preliminary ruling.
Reasserting jurisprudence constante
Some of the questions addressed in APS Beta Bulgaria have already been the subject of established case law in recent years. For example, in response to the fifth question, the Court of Justice reaffirmed that the classification of a commercial practice as unfair, following Pereničová and Perenič, constitutes just one aspect of the broader context within which standard terms are to be assessed for unfairness, under Art. 4(1) and Art. 3(1) UCTD (paras 75-77).
Similarly, the Court reaffirmed that national courts are under a duty to examine the unfairness of standard terms ex officio. However, a mere doubt as to their unfairness is not sufficient to support a finding to that effect. In this regard, the Court confirmed that where national courts are empowered to take investigative measures of their own motion to supplement the case file – provided that the audi alteram partem principle is respected – this power extends to order-for-payment proceedings. This position is consistent with case law beginning with Banco Español de Crédito, in which the ex officio obligations of national courts were recognised in the context of such proceedings. By confirming the relevance of the audi alteram partem principle, the Court also underscored that the parties to the proceedings are expected to assume an active role. In this respect, the Court reaffirmed its jurisprudence constante (e.g., ERSTE Bank Hungary, para 62; Sziber, paras 46-47; Lintner, paras 38–39, 44).
In answering the first question, the Court also reaffirmed its case law established in Kásler (paras 37-38), Matei (para 50) and Andriciuc (para 34), holding that the concept of the main subject matter of the contract under Art. 4(2) UCTD constitutes an autonomous concept of EU law (paras 49–52). The Court once again defined the main subject matter as the essential obligations of the contract, which do not appear to correspond directly to the concept of essentialia negotii under national law, particularly as there is no express reference to the law of the Member States (para 51). The issue arose as to whether the contract of guarantee might be excluded from unfairness control on the basis that it constitutes a separate agreement, whereas a guarantee would merely qualify as an ancillary term under the credit agreement. The Court held that the credit and guarantee agreements should be regarded as forming a single contractual relationship, especially where the costs of the guarantee are payable within the credit instalments. Accordingly, the assessment of whether a contract term constitutes a core term must be undertaken with reference to the essential nature of the obligation within the overall contractual relationship, rather than by isolating the contract of guarantee (paras 55–59). In so doing, the Court opened the way for the assessment of unfairness of the contract of guarantee, without classing it as falling under the scope of the exclusion under Art. 4(2) UCTD (paras 53–54).
A similar observation may be made regarding the Court’s answer to the eighth question. It confirmed that the concept of the total cost of credit to the consumer is defined broadly to include all costs which the consumer is required to pay in connection with the credit agreement. In this regard, it follows that the costs linked to a contract of guarantee – where the conclusion of such a contract is imposed on the consumer by a term in the credit agreement and contributes to the overall consumer’s debt – fall within both the concept of total cost and that of the APRC (paras 86-93). Notably, the Court did not engage with the concept of ‘total cost of the credit’ as an autonomous concept of EU law, although it might have done so, particularly given its approach in Soho Group (paras 39, 51).
In a similar vein, the Court reasserted its case law on the proportionality of sanctions as developed in Profi Credit Bulgaria, namely that a failure to provide a correct APRC, accurately reflecting the extent of the consumer’s liability, may under national law (that is, it is proportional) result in the creditor being deprived of entitlement to interest and charges connected to the credit agreement. This raises the further question whether any failure to indicate the APRC – irrespective of its seriousness – may justify the same sanction, or whether certain inaccuracies, such as minor discrepancies (as under French law, see Art. R313-1 II Al. 4 C. con.) or errors in favour of the consumer (e.g., where the APRC indicated in the contract is higher than the actual one), could still be regarded as proportionate grounds for forfeiture of interests and charges linked to the credit agreement.
Some Doubts Regarding Interpretative Restraint
Although the Court has reaffirmed its jurisprudence constante, certain aspects of the judgment may nevertheless be viewed critically – particularly in relation to the Court’s interpretative restraint.
For instance, in addressing the second and third referred questions, the Court focused on three types of contract terms that may be considered unfair under the Annex to the UCTD. These include terms (Point 1, (i), (j), (m) of the Annex I UCTD), which: first, irrevocably bind the consumer to provisions of which they had no real opportunity to become aware before the conclusion of the contract; secondly, allow the seller or supplier unilaterally to alter the terms of the contract without a valid reason specified therein; and thirdly, grant the seller or supplier the exclusive right to determine whether the goods or services supplied conform with the contract, or to interpret the terms of the contract unilaterally. As the Court observed, a contract term by which the consumer undertakes to conclude a contract of guarantee with a guarantor chosen by the lender – without being aware, at the time of concluding the credit agreement, of the guarantor’s identity or the terms of the guarantee – does not correspond to any of the contract terms listed in the Annex to the UCTD (paras 62–63). Nonetheless, this does not preclude its classification as unfair. Such a term must instead be assessed under the general unfairness criteria laid down in Art. 3(1) UCTD (para 63). What remains unclear, however, is why the Court refrained from offering more specific guidance on how such terms might be assessed for unfairness, or under what circumstances they could justifiably be found unfair under the criteria of Art. 3(1) UCTD. While it is true that this assessment ultimately falls to national courts, the Court has previously provided tailored guidance on the application of Art. 3(1) UCTD to specific types of terms – such as accelerated repayment clauses in Banco Primus (paras 65–67) or, more recently, in Všeobecná úverová banka (para 86). Its failure to do so in this case may be understood as a form of interpretative restraint, even though such guidance would have been of practical value to other Bulgarian courts in assessing similar clauses in related proceedings, including those not subject to the current reference in the preliminary ruling procedure. It remains to be seen whether more detailed guidance will be offered in the still pending analogous case Financial Bulgaria (C-426/23).
A comparable concern arises from the Court’s answer to the fourth question on unfair commercial practices. Although the referring court sought only a classification of the practice as aggressive under Annex I to the UCPD (paras 66–71), the Court might have offered broader guidance on whether such a practice could also fall within the general concept of unfairness under this directive. Although such clarification – comparable to the guidance the Court has been providing under the UCTD – would have been of practical relevance for Bulgarian courts, this approach remains arguable, since the Court was bound by the narrowly framed question referred by the national court concerning Annex I of the UCPD.
A further issue arises from the Court’s response to the sixth and seventh referred questions. The Court held that it could not assess the compatibility of national case law with, inter alia, Art. 5 and 7 UCTD, as both provisions concern contract terms rather than the legal effects that arise from the judicial application of national legislation (para 79). Although this distinction is formally correct, the Court could have engaged with the broader context or, at least, acknowledged that the UCPD framework may be relevant in such circumstances – particularly concerning time limitations. Where guarantors – potentially subsidiaries of the lender and within one overreaching contractual framework – satisfy the debt after the applicable national limitation period has expired, such conduct may effectively circumvent debtor-protective rules. This raises serious concerns whether such commercial practices could not be viewed as unfair commercial practices under the UCPD framework.
Of particular interest is that the Court did not classify the credit agreement and the contract of guarantee as a linked credit agreement within the meaning of Art. 3(n) CCD (2008), thereby excluding the application of Art. 15 of that directive (paras 80–85). While this narrow conclusion is justified on the basis of a literal interpretation of the referral, the Court could have addressed Art. 17 CCD, a provision invoked by the Commission during the proceedings (AG, para 25). A more thorough engagement with this provision would have offered clearer guidance to national courts in cases involving analogous contractual arrangements where one agreement, such as a guarantee, is intrinsically linked to another, such as a credit agreement.
Where Now?
The underlying doubts surrounding the Court’s interpretative restraint in this case may be understood through the lens of judicial dialogue. As AG Collins observed in his Opinion (AG, paras 24–25), it is the responsibility of national courts to formulate the questions referred to the Court of Justice, and the Court limits itself to answering the questions so posed. Nonetheless, the Court’s reliance on a strictly literal reading of both the referred questions and the applicable legal provisions – without situating them in their broader factual and regulatory context – reflects a form of interpretative restraint or even escapism. This approach appears designed to preserve the formal boundaries of judicial dialogue, but it comes at the expense of substantive guidance for national courts. In other words, such interpretative restraint appears to balance judicial dialogue over the need to provide legal certainty for consumers – and, by extension, over the achievement of a high level of consumer protection. This is particularly problematic when it comes to clarifying general clauses or engaging with provisions such as Art. 17 CCD (2008). The issue is especially pressing considering growing concerns about informal debt collection practices, which have recently been the subject of detailed academic analysis (see Stănescu 2025, in OA). What emerges from this case is a broader and more pressing question: does APS Beta Bulgaria reflect an isolated instance of an overemphasis on judicial dialogue, or does it signal a broader shift toward interpretative restraint – or even escapism – in the Court’s ever-evolving case law?