# C_2015236EN.01000602.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Froukje Faber v Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV

(Case C-497/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/44/EC - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Status of the purchaser - Consumer status - Lack of conformity of the goods delivered - Duty to inform the seller - Lack of conformity which became apparent within six months of delivery of the goods - Burden of proof))

(2015/C 236/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Froukje Faber

Applicant:

Defendant: Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as meaning that a national court before which an action relating to a contract which may be covered by that directive has been brought, is required to determine whether the purchaser may be classified as a consumer within the meaning of that directive, even if the purchaser has not relied on that status, as soon as that court has at its disposal the matters of law and of fact that are necessary for that purpose or may have them at its disposal simply by making a request for clarification. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as meaning that a national court before which an action relating to a contract which may be covered by that directive has been brought, is required to determine whether the purchaser may be classified as a consumer within the meaning of that directive, even if the purchaser has not relied on that status, as soon as that court has at its disposal the matters of law and of fact that are necessary for that purpose or may have them at its disposal simply by making a request for clarification.

| 2) | Article 5(3) of Directive 1999/44 must be interpreted as meaning that it must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to a national rule which ranks, within the domestic legal system, as a rule of public policy and that the national court must of its own motion apply any provision which transposes it into domestic law. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 5(3) of Directive 1999/44 must be interpreted as meaning that it must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to a national rule which ranks, within the domestic legal system, as a rule of public policy and that the national court must of its own motion apply any provision which transposes it into domestic law.

| 3) | Article 5(2) of Directive 1999/44 must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule which provides that the consumer, in order to benefit from the rights which he derives from that directive, must inform the seller of the lack of conformity in good time, provided that that consumer has a period of not less than two months from the date on which he detected that lack of conformity to give that notification, that the notification to be given relates only to the existence of that lack of conformity and that it is not subject to rules of evidence which would make it impossible or excessively difficult for the consumer to exercise his rights. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Article 5(2) of Directive 1999/44 must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule which provides that the consumer, in order to benefit from the rights which he derives from that directive, must inform the seller of the lack of conformity in good time, provided that that consumer has a period of not less than two months from the date on which he detected that lack of conformity to give that notification, that the notification to be given relates only to the existence of that lack of conformity and that it is not subject to rules of evidence which would make it impossible or excessively difficult for the consumer to exercise his rights.

| 4) | Article 5(3) of Directive 1999/44 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule that the lack of conformity is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery of the goods






  — | applies if the consumer furnishes evidence that the goods sold are not in conformity with the contract and that the lack of conformity in question became apparent, that is to say, became physically apparent, within six months of delivery of the goods. The consumer is not required to prove the cause of that lack of conformity or to establish that its origin is attributable to the seller; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4)

Article 5(3) of Directive 1999/44 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule that the lack of conformity is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery of the goods

—

applies if the consumer furnishes evidence that the goods sold are not in conformity with the contract and that the lack of conformity in question became apparent, that is to say, became physically apparent, within six months of delivery of the goods. The consumer is not required to prove the cause of that lack of conformity or to establish that its origin is attributable to the seller;

| — | may be discounted only if the seller proves to the requisite legal standard that the cause or origin of that lack of conformity lies in circumstances which arose after the delivery of the goods. |
| --- | --- |

—

may be discounted only if the seller proves to the requisite legal standard that the cause or origin of that lack of conformity lies in circumstances which arose after the delivery of the goods.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

1

---