On 7 May 2025 the Supreme Court of Cassation ordered the initiation of an interpretative court case in which the General Assembly of the Civil Chamber will have to rule on the question whether a claim of a network operator that is based on an adjustment of bills constitutes a periodical claim by its nature, respectively when does it become void by prescription, and from when does the prescription period start to run.
The initiation of the interpretative court case is a result of observing contradictory case law on the issue, both of the courts of instance and of the Supreme Court of Cassation itself. In one part of its resolutions, it holds that the adjustment claim is periodical, and the mandatory clarifications and characterizations of periodical claims set out in Interpretive resolution No. 3 of 18 May 2012 of the General Assembly of the Civil and Commercial Chambers are applicable to it. When there is an adjustment of the bills, there is a claim for payment for the electricity supplied and consumed under a valid agreement concluded between the parties, where the consumer has an obligation for the performance of recurring money obligations arising out of a single fact – the agreement itself, which fall due at predetermined intervals of time and whose amounts are inherently determinable, irrespective of whether they are of the same or of different amounts.
The opposite view has been held in some of the case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation as well, stating that the adjustment claim itself is not periodical, as it is not a claim for the amount of electricity that is consumed and billed as established in the regular monthly reports, but is the result of an explicit and legally established correction procedure for the recalculation of the measured amount of electricity. Therefore, the assessment is not regular and periodic. The recalculation is carried out as a result of a completed examination and the performance of a specialised expertise, in the presence of the legal prerequisites. The consumer’s obligation is for a one-off payment of the value of the entire recalculated amount of consumed and measured electricity during the regulatory period – in other words, there is a single payment, with a due date determined by the invoice issued, and the provisions of Interpretive resolution No. 3 of 18 May 2012 are not applicable.
The practical meaning of this variety in interpretation arises in view of the prescription period applicable to the adjustment claim. If it is regarded as periodical claim, the provision of Article 111, letter “c” of the Obligations and Contracts Act shall be applied – it provides for a 3-year prescription period (compared to the general 5-year prescription that would apply if the operator’s claim was determined as a one-off payment). The Supreme Court of Cassation shall also determine from when does the prescription period start to run. Article 114 of the Obligations and Contract Act ties this moment to the moment when the claim becomes recoverable, but that would differ depending on the nature of the claim – if it is assumed to be periodical, the due date occurs separately for each established period; and if it is assumed to be a single payment – the entire claim becomes recoverable from the issue of invoice.
The initiated interpretative court case No. 1 of 2025 is set to give answers to the matters discussed in this news. The ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation will not only unify the case law, but will also directly affect a wide range of consumers.
The full text of the Order of the Supreme Court of Cassation on the initiation of the interpretative court case can be found here.
The news above is for information purposes only. It is not a (binding) legal advice. For a thorough understanding of the subjects covered and prior acting on any issue discussed we kindly recommend Readers consult Ilieva, Voutcheva & Co. Law Firm attorneys at law.
