The Consumer Credit Act (CCA)—most recently amended in State Gazette No.13 of February 3, 2026—is a fundamental piece of Bulgarian legislation designed primarily to ensure a high level of consumer protection when entering into credit agreements. It regulates the relationship between creditors (banks and non-bank financial institutions) and consumers, guaranteeing transparency, clarity, and fairness throughout the lending process. The act aims to prevent abusive practices by creditors and to provide customers with the assurance that they understand the terms under which they are borrowing.
The CCA sets out the requirements for credit agreements, the obligations to provide pre-contractual information, and the rules for advertising financial products. Among the most important consumer rights are:
• Right to Information: Before signing a contract, the lender is required to provide the consumer with a standardized European form containing pre-contractual information. This enables the client to compare offers from different institutions on an equal footing;
• Annual Percentage Rate (APR): This is the most important indicator that the law mandates be clearly stated in the contract. The APR includes not only the interest rate but also all other costs associated with the loan (fees, commissions, insurance), providing a true picture of the loan’s cost;
• Written Form of the Contract: The contract must be concluded in writing – on paper or another durable medium – and written in clear, understandable language. The consumer is entitled to a copy of it;
• Right of Withdrawal: The consumer has the right to withdraw from the consumer credit agreement within 14 days of signing, without incurring penalties and without providing a reason, by repaying the amount drawn and the interest accrued for that period;
• Early Repayment: The law guarantees the consumer’s right to repay the loan early (partially or in full) at any time; the lender is entitled to fair and objective compensation only under specific statutory conditions.
The Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria (SCC) has repeatedly ruled on disputes concerning the application of the CCA with the aim of harmonizing case law. In recent months, two such rulings were issued pursuant to Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Code, presented hereto:
- From What Moment Does the Limitation Period for Amounts Unduly Paid under a Consumer Credit Begin to Run?
Pursuant to Article 23 of CCA, in the event of the invalidity of the contract, the consumer is required to repay only the principal amount of the credit, without interest or other costs. Consequently, the consumer is entitled to the reimbursement of any interest and other costs—such as fees paid under the credit agreement, as these amounts were paid without legal basis.
In Commercial Case No. 1445/2025 before SCC, 1st Commercial Division, the court has been referred with the following question: From what point in time does the limitation period begin to run for a claim under Article 55, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the Obligations and Contracts Act (OCA), brought by a consumer for the reimbursement of sums unduly paid in performance of unfair terms in a credit agreement?
In Decision No. 78 of March 16, 2026, the SCC held that determining the starting point of the limitation period for a consumer’s claim regarding reimbursement of amounts paid to a creditor—where the payment was made pursuant to a consumer credit agreement that was invalid due to non-compliance with the requirements of the CCA and lacked a legal basis from the outset—depends on establishing whether the consumer knew or could reasonably have known of the agreement’s invalidity. The assessment of whether and when such knowledge was acquired is based on the circumstances established in the case. To be concluded that consumers possessed such knowledge, it should be proven they were aware of the facts rendering the agreement invalid, as well as the legal implications thereof implying that the consumers understood their rights under the CCA in protection of their interests.
Only if it is proven during the proceedings that the consumer knew or could reasonably have known of the invalidity of the consumer credit agreement at the time the lender received the sums paid by the consumer thereunder, the limitation period for the consumer’s claim for the return of those sums—pursuant to Article 55, Para. 1, sentence 1 of the OCA—shall begin to run on the day of receipt of the amounts as per Point 7 of Decree No. 1 of May 28, 1979, of the Plenum of the Supreme Court.
If the proceedings do not establish that the condition regarding the consumer’s knowledge was met at the time the sums were paid in performance of the invalid consumer credit agreement, the limitation period for the restitution claim for the recovery of those sums cannot begin to run from the moment of payment, as doing so would infringe the principle of effectiveness. In such a scenario, the limitation period begins to run from the moment it is proven that the consumer became aware, or could reasonably have become aware, of the invalidity of the consumer credit agreement.
This understanding is also consistent with the enhanced protection afforded to the consumer as the economically weaker party—as provided for in Directive 93/13 and clarified in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)—through the exclusion of the effects of an unfair contract term requiring the payment of sums found not to be due, thereby giving rise to a corresponding obligation to repay them. The procedures and conditions established by national legislation must not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and must not be structured in a way that renders the exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal order practically impossible or excessively difficult (principle of effectiveness). See, to that effect, Judgment of 26 October 2006 in Case C-168/05, Mostaza Claro, para. 24; Judgment of 16 July 2020 in joined cases C-224/19 and C-259/19, para. 83; and Judgment of 22 April 2021 in Case C-485/19, para. 52. According to the CJEU, a limitation period may be compatible with the principle of effectiveness if the consumers had the opportunity to become aware of their rights before that period began to run or expired.
In the present case, given the absence of proven knowledge on the part of the plaintiff—the borrower under the consumer credit agreement—regarding grounds for the agreement’s nullity (or any scenario in which they could have become aware of such grounds) prior to the date the statement of claim was filed, it must be concluded that the limitation period does not commence upon the payment of each undue instalment (specifically the portion covering interest and fees) but rather upon the date the statement of claim was filed (absent any earlier date of actual awareness regarding the grounds and legal framework for the contract’s nullity); consequently, the claim is well-founded.
- Is the Consumer Credit Agreement Invalid in the Event of a Violation of the Font Requirement?
Pursuant to Article 10, Para. 1 of the CCA, a consumer credit agreement shall be concluded in writing—on paper or another durable medium—in a clear and understandable manner, with all elements of the agreement presented in a uniform font type, format, and size no smaller than 12, and in two copies—one for each of the parties to the agreement.
Decision No. 180 of 15 July 2026 in Commercial Case No. 1439/2025 of the SCC, 1st Commercial Division, addresses the legal question concerning the significance of the font size used in a consumer credit agreement and the consequences of non-compliance with the requirement introduced by Article 10, Para. 1 of the CCA.
The court panel concurs with the established and consistent case law of the SCC, which holds that a violation of the font requirements set out in Article 10, Para. 1 of the CCA renders the credit agreement invalid pursuant to Article 22 of the CCA; consequently, the consumer is liable to repay only the principal amount of the credit, without interest or other costs. Various panels of the SCC have analyzed the case law of the CJEU and concluded that the requirement under Article 10, Para. 1 of the CCA—mandating that all elements of a consumer credit agreement be set out in a uniform font type, format, and size (no smaller than size 12)—does not conflict with Article 10(2) and Article 22(1) of 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. Pursuant to Article 23 and Recital 47 of Directive 2008/48/EC, Member States must establish a system of sanctions for infringements of the national provisions adopted in accordance with the Directive and take all measures necessary to ensure the enforcement of such sanctions, ensuring that the sanctions provided for are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. In accordance with these rules, the CCA (transposing the provisions of Directive 2008/48/EC) stipulates that a violation of the provision regarding font size renders the consumer credit agreement invalid, and the creditor is sanctioned by the forfeiture of interest and other credit-related costs (Art. 23 of CCA). In its judgment in Case C-42/15, the CJEU clarified that for failure to comply with a requirement of essential importance within the context of Directive 2008/48 a creditor may be sanctioned under national law by the loss of the right to interest and costs. In Ruling dated 14 April 2021 in Case C-535/20, the CJEU (6th Chamber) held that national legislation requiring all elements of a consumer credit agreement to be presented in a font of the same type, format, and size – no smaller than size 12—is permissible. Since Directive 2008/48 does not specify in detail the font format and size to be used when providing the borrower with information regarding the terms of the agreement and the consequences of concluding it, Member States generally retain the competence to establish rules concerning both the specific form of presentation of such information and the consequences of non-compliance (invalidity of the agreement pursuant to Article 22 of the CCA).
Furthermore, in Decision No. 50084 of January 9, 2024, rendered in Commercial Case No. 875/2022 by the First Commercial Division of the SCC, it was held that “exercising the care of a prudent merchant requires taking into account all circumstances relevant to the requirements established by law. Mathematically rounding a measured font size from 11.6 to 12 does not comply with the statutory rule requiring the font size to be no less than 12; arguments that this difference in size is insignificant are irrelevant when applying a mandatory statutory rule.”
Since the expert report established that the consumer credit agreement, its annexes, the General Terms and Conditions, and the repayment schedule were all drafted using the same font—Times New Roman—at a size smaller than 12 pt, namely – consumer credit agreement: 11.5 pt; annex dated 12 June 2020: 11.6 pt; annex dated 17 February 2021: 11.5 pt; General Terms and Conditions: 11.7 pt; repayment schedule: 7.6 pt, there is a violation of the mandatory provision of Article 10, Para. 1 of the CCA. Consequently, the entire credit agreement is invalid pursuant to Article 22 of the CCA, and the consumer is liable only for the net value of the credit, without interest or other costs.
