Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:447
Date: 2019-05-23
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Norderstedt (Germany) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Christian Fülla v Toolport GmbH (Case C-52/18) Language of the case: German Referring court Amtsgericht Norderstedt Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Christian Fülla Defendant: Toolport GmbH Questions referred 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? 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? 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? 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? 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? 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).