# C_2018152EN.01000701.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Norderstedt (Germany) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Christian Fülla v Toolport GmbH

(Case C-52/18)

(2018/C 152/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Norderstedt

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Fülla

Applicant:

Defendant: Toolport GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer must in all cases offer goods acquired under a distance contract to an undertaking in order to enable repair or replacement only at the place where the goods are located? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer must in all cases offer goods acquired under a distance contract to an undertaking in order to enable repair or replacement only at the place where the goods are located?

1

| 2. | If not:
  Is the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer must in all cases offer goods acquired under a distance contract to an undertaking in order to enable repair or replacement at the undertaking’s place of business? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not:

Is the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer must in all cases offer goods acquired under a distance contract to an undertaking in order to enable repair or replacement at the undertaking’s place of business?

| 3. | If not:
  What criteria can be derived from the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC as regards how to specify the place where the consumer must offer goods acquired under a distance contract to the undertaking in order to enable repair or replacement? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not:

What criteria can be derived from the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC as regards how to specify the place where the consumer must offer goods acquired under a distance contract to the undertaking in order to enable repair or replacement?

| 4. | If the place where the consumer must offer goods acquired under a distance contract to an undertaking for examination and to enable repair is — in all cases or in this specific case — the undertaking’s place of business:
  Is it compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with Article 3(4) thereof, for a consumer to have to pay the costs of outward and/or return shipping, or does it follow from the requirement ‘to repair free of charge’ that the seller is required to make an advance payment? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the place where the consumer must offer goods acquired under a distance contract to an undertaking for examination and to enable repair is — in all cases or in this specific case — the undertaking’s place of business:

Is it compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with Article 3(4) thereof, for a consumer to have to pay the costs of outward and/or return shipping, or does it follow from the requirement ‘to repair free of charge’ that the seller is required to make an advance payment?

| 5. | If the place where the consumer must offer goods acquired under a distance contract to an undertaking for examination and to enable repair is — in all cases or in this specific case — the undertaking’s place of business and a requirement for the consumer to pay costs in advance is compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with Article 3(4) thereof:
  Is the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with the second indent of Article 3(5) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer who has merely notified a defect to the undertaking is not entitled to have a contract rescinded without offering to transport the goods to the place where the undertaking is located? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the place where the consumer must offer goods acquired under a distance contract to an undertaking for examination and to enable repair is — in all cases or in this specific case — the undertaking’s place of business and a requirement for the consumer to pay costs in advance is compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with Article 3(4) thereof:

Is the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with the second indent of Article 3(5) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer who has merely notified a defect to the undertaking is not entitled to have a contract rescinded without offering to transport the goods to the place where the undertaking is located?

| 6. | If the place where the consumer must offer goods acquired under a distance contract to an undertaking for examination and to enable repair is — in all cases or in this specific case — the undertaking’s place of business and a requirement for the consumer to pay costs in advance is not compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with Article 3(4) thereof:
  Is the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with the second indent of Article 3(5) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer who has merely notified a defect to the undertaking is not entitled to have a contract rescinded without offering to transport the goods to the place where the undertaking is located? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the place where the consumer must offer goods acquired under a distance contract to an undertaking for examination and to enable repair is — in all cases or in this specific case — the undertaking’s place of business and a requirement for the consumer to pay costs in advance is not compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with Article 3(4) thereof:

Is the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with the second indent of Article 3(5) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer who has merely notified a defect to the undertaking is not entitled to have a contract rescinded without offering to transport the goods to the place where the undertaking is located?

---

(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 (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12).

1

---