CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 16 June 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 12694/22 Nikolay Vasilev NIKOLOV against Bulgaria lodged on 2 March 2022 communicated on 28 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings, in which the national courts allegedly failed to address an important argument raised by the applicant. The proceedings were brought in 2021 by a credit company seeking a payment order against the applicant, following his failure to repay in full a loan taken in 2013. In his defence, the applicant raised the following arguments: 1) that the plaintiff company was acting in ill faith, since it had had the chance to bring its claim in previous proceedings, 2) that repayment of the loan had become time-barred, and 3) that the credit contract was null and void due to unfair terms; specifically, the annual credit cost of about 110% exceeded the limit provided for in section 19(4) of the Consumer Credits Act, which, under section 19(5), constituted a ground for nullity. In a judgment dated 28 July 2021, the Sliven District Court ruled in favour of the credit company, without addressing any of the arguments referred to above. In a final judgment of 3 November 2021, the Sliven Regional Court upheld the lower court’s conclusions. It stated that: 1) there was no proof of ill faith on the part of the credit company, 2) the prescription period had started to run in 2017 when the last payment had been due, and had not expired by the time the company had brought proceedings against the applicant, and 3) the applicant had received a reimbursement plan upon signing the contract, and it was undisputable that he had not fully repaid the loan. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (relying in addition on Article 13) that the national courts failed to adequately consider his arguments, in particular that the credit contract was null and void due to unfair terms.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the national courts adequately consider the arguments raised by the applicant in the civil proceedings brought against him? If not, did their failure amount to a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts respond to the applicant’s argument that the credit contract he had signed was null and void due to unfair terms?