Recent Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code Regarding Consumer Protection
Summary
In December 2019, amendments were made to Bulgaria's Civil Procedure Code (CPC) granting the court a new, mandatory power: to examine of its own motion — without the debtor being required to raise an objection — whether contracts with consumers contain unfair terms. This new obligation applies both in ordinary civil disputes and, most significantly, in order-for-payment proceedings and immediate enforcement proceedings, where until now the court carried out only a formal review of the documents. The aim is to prevent compulsory enforcement (issuance of writs of execution) against consumers on the basis of contracts containing unfair terms.
Key Facts at a Glance- What changed: The Civil Procedure Code (CPC), amended in December 2019
- Nature of the change: The court is now obliged to examine, of its own motion, whether unfair terms exist in consumer contracts
- Who counts as a "consumer"? Determined by reference to the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) — a person who acquires or uses goods or services for personal or family needs, not for professional or commercial purposes
- Where the new duty applies: In ordinary civil proceedings, in order-for-payment proceedings, and in immediate enforcement proceedings under Article 417 of the CPC
- Key legal definition: "Unfair term" — defined in Article 143 of the Consumer Protection Act
- Extended appeal period: From two weeks to one month for appealing an order for immediate enforcement
- Unresolved bottleneck in the system: The court still has only three days (Article 411(2) CPC) to rule on an application for an order for enforcement — even though the review is now substantive rather than merely formal
Why These Amendments Were Adopted
Consumer law has grown increasingly important in recent years, and the legislature has extended consumer protection beyond the scope of the special Consumer Protection Act by incorporating it into ordinary civil proceedings as well. The December 2019 amendments to the CPC target unfair terms in consumer contracts specifically, closing gaps that had until then allowed creditors to obtain enforceable titles and writs of execution without any judicial review of whether the underlying contract was fair to the consumer.
Who Is a "Consumer" Under the New Rules
The CPC itself contains no definition of "consumer" for the purposes of the new procedural rules. Instead, courts apply the definition from the Consumer Protection Act: broadly speaking, a consumer is a person who acquires or uses goods or services for personal or family needs — not for professional or commercial purposes.
New Duty #1: The Court Reviews Unfair Terms of Its Own Motion in All Consumer Disputes
Already in Chapter Two of the CPC — "Basic Principles" — a new duty has been introduced requiring the court to examine of its own motion whether a contract concluded with a consumer contains unfair terms.
What this means in practice:
- The defendant is not required to raise an objection regarding unfair terms — the court must check this on its own initiative.
- In any civil dispute arising from a consumer contract, the court first rules on whether unfair terms are present.
- Only after completing this review does the court proceed to examine the merits of the dispute.
New Duty #2: Order-for-Payment Proceedings Now Require a Substantive Review
Order-for-payment proceedings are used to obtain an enforceable title — an order for enforcement — following which, once it takes effect, a writ of execution is issued. The 2019 amendments substantially changed the procedure where the debtor is a consumer.
Documents now required: Where the claim arises from a written contract with a consumer, the application for an order for enforcement must be accompanied by:
- The contract itself
- All annexes amending or supplementing it
- The applicable general terms and conditions of the supplier of the goods or services
New ground for refusal: The court must now refuse to issue an order for enforcement if it finds that:
- The claim is based on an unfair term in a consumer contract, or
- There is a reasonable likelihood that such a term exists
The more significant change — from formal to substantive review:
| Before the Amendment | After the Amendment |
|---|---|
| The court checked only the formal regularity of the application | The court checks formal regularity and the fairness of the terms on the merits |
| The court checked whether a specific enforceable claim was identified | The court examines the actual legal relationship between the creditor and the debtor |
| No review of whether the claim actually existed | The court analyzes the submitted documents to verify the claim and check for unfair terms |
New Duty #3: Immediate Enforcement Proceedings (Article 417 CPC)
Article 417 of the CPC lists the documents on the basis of which an order for immediate enforcement may be issued — a faster procedure under which a writ of execution can be issued at once, before the order takes effect. This procedure has traditionally been used extensively by commercial banks.
Old rule (Article 417(2) CPC): Banks could obtain an order for immediate enforcement solely on the basis of an extract from their own accounting books certifying a customer's overdue and unpaid obligations.
New rule: The written contract from which the bank's claim arises must now be attached to that extract, together with all annexes and the applicable general terms and conditions. An analogous requirement applies where the document under Article 417 CPC is a promissory note, bill of exchange, or other equivalent negotiable instrument, a bond, or a coupon thereof — where the instrument secures a claim under a written contract with a consumer.
Effect on appeals: If the debtor appeals an order for immediate enforcement, the appellate court is now also obliged to check whether the underlying consumer contract contains unfair terms — in addition to the existing review of the document's formal regularity and the certified enforceable claim. If unfair terms are found, the order for immediate enforcement is set aside and the writ of execution issued is invalidated (the same outcome as when no enforceable claim exists at all — for example, where a consumer was not duly notified of early acceleration under a credit agreement).
Additional Safeguards for Consumer-Debtors
Besides the review for unfair terms, the amendments introduce several other measures favoring consumer-debtors:
- A longer period for voluntary compliance, specified in the order for enforcement
- A longer appeal period: extended from two weeks to one month for appealing an order for immediate enforcement
- A lower amount of security that the debtor must provide to request suspension of enforcement after an order for immediate enforcement has been issued
- Three specific grounds for suspending enforcement without providing security, now explicitly set out:
- The claim is not owed
- The claim is based on an unfair term in a consumer contract
- The amount of the claim under a consumer contract has been incorrectly calculated
What Counts as an "Unfair Term"
Article 143 of the Consumer Protection Act defines an unfair term as one that:
- Is to the detriment of the consumer
- Fails to meet the requirement of good faith
- Causes a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the trader or supplier, on one hand, and the consumer, on the other
The Consumer Protection Act also sets out an explicit list of specific situations generally considered to meet this definition. Since the CPC does not give the term "unfair term in a consumer contract" a different meaning, when exercising its new powers the court should first consider the situations of unfairness explicitly set out in the special law, and, where additional analysis is needed, rely on the general criteria contained in the definition.
Remaining Problem: The Three-Day Deadline for Ruling
One practical constraint remains unchanged: under Article 411(2) of the CPC, the court still has only three days to rule on an application for an order for enforcement — a period that must now also accommodate the substantive review for possible unfair terms. Given the scope of review now required, this legislative solution does not adequately guarantee that the court can effectively exercise its new powers, and creates the risk of a purely formal assessment — which serves the interests of neither the creditor-applicant nor the consumer-debtor.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the December 2019 amendments to the CPC change?
They introduced an obligation for the court to check, of its own motion, whether contracts with consumers contain unfair terms — both in ordinary civil proceedings and in order-for-payment and immediate enforcement proceedings.
Who counts as a "consumer" under these rules?
A person who acquires or uses goods or services for personal or family needs, rather than for professional or commercial purposes, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
Can the court refuse to issue an order for enforcement because of an unfair term?
Yes. If the court finds that the claim is based on an unfair term — or that there is a reasonable likelihood of such a term — it must refuse to issue the order.
Have the procedures for enforcing bank claims changed?
Yes. Banks relying on Article 417(2) of the CPC (an extract from accounting books) must now also submit the underlying written contract, its annexes, and the applicable general terms and conditions.
What is the new deadline for consumers to appeal an order for immediate enforcement?
One month — instead of the previous two-week period.
What is an "unfair term" under Bulgarian consumer law?
Under Article 143 of the Consumer Protection Act, it is a term to the detriment of the consumer that violates the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the trader or supplier and those of the consumer.
Is there a weakness in the practical application of the new rules?
Yes — the court still has only three days (Article 411(2) CPC) to carry out this substantive review, which may not be sufficient for it to be conducted meaningfully.
