Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 December 2023 – Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite ‘Bulgarian Posts’ EAD v ‘Bulgarian Posts’ EAD

(Case C-785/23, Bulgarian Posts)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Respondent: ‘Bulgarian Posts’ EAD

Questions referred

Are services provided by the licensee for the provision of the universal postal service in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria on the basis of individual contracts with users of postal services to be regarded as services which are provided by a ‘public postal service’ within the meaning of Article 132 of Chapter 2 of Title IX of Council Directive 2006/112/EC ¹ of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and are ‘in the public interest’, where those individual contracts provide that the service must fulfil one or all of the following conditions, namely: collection of items is effected outside the access points (collection and delivery are effected at the customer’s address); the collection and delivery are effected at a time agreed in advance with the customers; the frequency of collection and delivery exceeds the frequency in the standards for the quality of the universal postal service and efficiency of service laid down by law, with provision made for additional collections at the request of the customer beyond the frequency expressly agreed for in the contract outside the opening hours of the post office branches; the service is provided at a lower price than that authorised by the KRS (Komisia za regulirane na saobshteniata, the national regulatory authority which authorises the prices for the universal postal service in Bulgaria) or with higher discounts than those authorised by the KRS?

Does it follow from the second indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC ¹ of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service that the services provided by a person who is a licensee of the universal postal service do not have the status of a universal postal service within the meaning of the directive if they are provided in accordance with an individual contract at a lower price than that authorised for the corresponding type of universal postal service and it has not been demonstrated that the price thus agreed covers the costs of provision?

Is the principle of transparency and non-discrimination enshrined in the fourth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service infringed if a person who is a licensee for the provision of the universal postal service concludes individual contracts for the provision of the universal postal service in which it lays down other conditions for the provision of the service which are more favourable than those which are published and publicly available?

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, does that constitute a ground for not treating the transactions as exempt within the meaning of Article 132 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

____________

¹ OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

¹ OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14.