Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2026:399
Date: 2026-05-13
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Translation C-488/24 –1 
Case C-488/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
11 July 2024 
Referring court: 
Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
11 July 2024 
Appellant on a point of law and applicant at first instance: 
D.V. 
Respondent in the appeal on a point of law and defendant at first instance: 
‘Kigas’ MB 
Other party: 
Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba 
  
[…] 
LIETUVOS AUKŠČIAUSIASIS TEISMAS (Supreme Court of Lithuania) 
ORDER 
11 July 2024 
Vilnius 
The Chamber of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, […] 
[composition of the court] 
[…] in an appeal on a point of law brought by the applicant, D.V., for the review 
of the order of the […] Kauno apygardos teismas (Regional Court, Kaunas, 
Lithuania) of 16 November 2023 in the civil case concerning the claim made by 
the applicant, D.V., against the defendant, the small partnership ‘Kigas’, regarding 
the carriage of goods and the counterclaim made by the defendant, the small 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11. 7. 2024 – CASE C-488/24 
 
2  
partnership ‘Kigas’, against the applicant, D.V., regarding the payment of the 
carriage charge and damages, after hearing the opinion of the Valstybinė vartotojų 
teisių apsaugos tarnyba (State Consumer Rights Protection Authority, Lithuania), 
states as follows: 
1 The dispute between the parties falls within the scope of European Union 
legislation (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC 
and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and 
repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council (‘Directive 2011/83’)), international legislation (the 
Convention of 19 May 1956 on the Contract for the International Carriage of 
Goods by Road (‘the CMR Convention’ or ‘the Convention’)), and national 
legislation (the Lietuvos Respublikos civilinis kodeksas (Civil Code of the 
Republic of Lithuania; ‘the Civil Code’)). 
2 […] [obligation to refer pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU] 
3 In the case under consideration, the need for the court hearing the appeal on a 
point of law to refer questions to the Court of Justice is based on the fact that the 
content of legal provisions of European Union law which are relevant to resolving 
the case are not definitively clear under either the acte clair doctrine or the acte 
éclairé doctrine. The answer to the questions set out in the operative part of the 
order and referred to the Court of Justice is of fundamental importance for the 
present case, since it would make it possible to determine the scope of the 
information to be provided by the carrier when concluding a contract for the 
carriage of goods with a consumer, to assess the adequacy of performance of the 
obligation to provide information and to resolve the issue of damages. 
I. Legal context. European Union law 
4 [Recital 27 of] Directive 2011/83 provides: 
‘Transport services cover passenger transport and transport of goods. Passenger 
transport should be excluded from the scope of this Directive as it is already 
subject to other Union legislation or, in the case of public transport and taxis, to 
regulation at national level. However, the provisions of this Directive protecting 
consumers against excessive fees for the use of means of payment or against 
hidden costs should apply also to passenger transport contracts. In relation to 
transport of goods and car rental which are services, consumers should benefit 
from the protection afforded by this Directive, with the exception of the right of 
withdrawal.’ 
5 Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 2011/83 provides: 
KIGAS 
 
3 
‘1. Before the consumer is bound by a contract other than a distance or an off-
premises contract, or any corresponding offer, the trader shall provide the 
consumer with the following information in a clear and comprehensible manner, 
if that information is not already apparent from the context: 
(a) the main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate 
to the medium and to the goods or services; 
(b) … 
(c) the total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the 
nature of the goods or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be 
calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be calculated, as well 
as, where applicable, all additional freight, delivery or postal charges or, where 
those charges cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the fact that such 
additional charges may be payable’. 
II. Provisions of the CMR Convention and Lithuanian legislation relevant 
for resolving the dispute between the parties 
6 Article 1(1) of the CMR Convention provides: 
‘This Convention shall apply to every contract for the carriage of goods by road 
in vehicles for reward, when the place of taking over of the goods and the place 
designated for delivery, as specified in the contract, are situated in two different 
countries, of which at least one is a Contracting country, irrespective of the place 
of residence and the nationality of the parties.’ 
7 Article 1(4) of the CMR Convention provides: 
‘This Convention shall not apply (a) To carriage performed under the terms of 
any international postal convention; (b) To funeral consignments; (c) To furniture 
removal.’ 
8 Article 4 of the CMR Convention provides: 
‘The contract of carriage shall be confirmed by the making out of a consignment 
note. The absence, irregularity or loss of the consignment note shall not affect the 
existence or the validity of the contract of carriage which shall remain subject to 
the provisions of this Convention.’ 
9 Article 11(1) and (2) of the CMR Convention provides: 
‘1. For the purposes of the Customs or other formalities which have to be 
completed before delivery of the goods, the sender shall attach the necessary 
documents to the consignment note or place them at the disposal of the carrier 
and shall furnish him with all the information which he requires. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11. 7. 2024 – CASE C-488/24 
 
4  
2. The carrier shall not be under any duty to inquire into either the accuracy or 
the adequacy of such documents and information. The sender shall be liable to the 
carrier for any damage caused by the absence, inadequacy or irregularity of such 
documents and information, except in the case of some wrongful act or neglect on 
the part of the carrier.’ 
10 Article 6.2286 of the Civil Code, entitled ‘General requirements for consumers’ 
right to information’, provides, in points 1 and 3 of paragraph 1 thereof: 
‘1. Before concluding a consumer contract other than a distance or off-
premises contract, the trader must provide the consumer with the necessary, 
correct, complete and non-misleading information in a clear and comprehensible 
manner. The information must be provided to the consumer in the official 
language. The trader must, when marking the goods or otherwise, provide the 
consumer with the following information, unless it is obvious from the context: 
(1) the main characteristics of the goods or service (taking into account the 
means of information and the goods or service); 
(2) … 
(3) the total price of goods or services inclusive of taxes or where, due to the 
nature of the goods or services, the price cannot reasonably be calculated in 
advance, the method by which that price is calculated and, where appropriate, 
any additional transport, delivery and postal costs, or where such additional costs 
cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the information that they may have 
to be paid; 
…’ 
11 Article 6.2286 of the Civil Code, entitled ‘General requirements for consumers’ 
right to information’, provides, in paragraph 5 thereof: 
‘5. The trader who has failed to comply or improperly complied with the 
obligation to provide information to the consumer must compensate for any loss 
suffered by that consumer.’ 
III. Relevant facts 
12 In the present case, it is common ground that the applicant, D.V. (the sender of the 
goods and a consumer), concluded with the defendant, ‘Kigas’ MB (the carrier of 
the goods and a trader), by telephone (orally) a contract for the carriage of goods 
and agreed that the defendant would transport goods for the [applicant]’s personal 
use – two motorcycles, a quadricycle, two washing machines and two dryers – 
from Norway to Lithuania for the price of EUR 450. The parties did not sign a 
written contract of carriage, nor did they draw up a consignment note. The goods 
were handed over to the sender’s carrier in Norway on 16 June 2020. It was noted 
KIGAS 
 
5 
by witness statement that, when the goods were handed over, an employee of the 
defendant asked the applicant whether it was necessary to stop at customs, but the 
applicant explained that the goods were being carried for himself. 
13 On 17 June 2020, an employee of the defendant was stopped, while performing 
the carriage, at the border between Norway and Sweden by Swedish customs 
officials. After those officials inspected the goods, it was decided that the goods 
imported from Norway into the territory of the European Union had to be declared 
to customs. On 17 June 2020, a customs declaration was drawn up […], which 
applied customs duties of 40 899 Swedish kronor (SEK). The defendant paid the 
customs duties in the amount of SEK 40 899 imposed by the Swedish customs 
authorities and, on 18 June 2020, issued an invoice to the applicant in the amount 
of EUR 4 340.59 (EUR 450 in respect of the transport (carriage) service and 
EUR 3 890.59 in respect of duties levied on the goods leaving the country). On 
20 June 2020, the defendant delivered all the items handed over by the applicant, 
with the exception of a KTM motorcycle, at the place indicated by the applicant in 
Lithuania and informed the applicant that it would hand over the seized 
motorcycle once the applicant had paid the abovementioned invoice. 
14 By its claim, the applicant claimed that the court should: (1) declare that the 
invoice of 18 June 2020 issued by the defendant, ‘Kigas’ MB, is unfounded, while 
acknowledging that the applicant is not liable to pay the duties stated in the 
invoice, and order the defendant to issue a new invoice indicating only a service 
charge of EUR 450; (2) order the defendant, ‘Kigas’ MB, to return the seized 
KTM motorcycle […] to the applicant immediately. The defendant made a 
counterclaim by which it contended that the court should: (1) order the applicant 
to pay EUR 450 in respect of the carriage of the goods; (2) award damages in the 
amount of EUR 3876.76. 
15 In the present case, the parties have not argued and, inter alia, no facts have been 
established to show that a removal service was provided in the present case. Nor is 
it disputed by the parties that the applicant (the sender) did not provide the 
defendant (the carrier) with the documents and information relating to the customs 
procedures. There is also no dispute in the present case that the defendant (the 
carrier) did not provide the consumer with detailed information on the customs 
procedures and the applicable rates of customs duties. 
16 By judgment of 17 May 2023, the Kauno apylinkės teismas (District Court, 
Kaunas) upheld the applicant’s claim in part and upheld the counterclaim in its 
entirety. That court ordered the defendant, ‘Kigas’ MB, to return the seized 
motorcycle to the applicant, D.V., upon the judgment becoming final and 
dismissed the action as to the remainder. That court ordered the applicant to pay 
the defendant EUR 450 for the carriage of the goods and EUR 3876.76 in 
damages. By order of 16 November 2023, the Regional Court, Kaunas, upheld the 
judgment of the District Court, Kaunas, of 17 May 2023. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11. 7. 2024 – CASE C-488/24 
 
6  
17 The courts that have heard the case have taken the view that not only the rules of 
the Civil Code governing consumer contracts, but also the provisions of the CMR 
Convention are applicable in the present case. Given that there is a conflict 
between the rules of the Civil Code governing consumer relations (Article 6.2286 
of the Civil Code) and the provisions laid down in Article 11(2) of the CMR 
Convention, those courts consider that the rules laid down in the CMR 
Convention should prevail. Those courts held that the applicant, as the sender of 
the goods, had failed to fulfil his obligation to provide the carrier with the 
documents and information necessary for the completion of the customs 
formalities and that he was therefore liable to reimburse the costs of 
EUR 3 876.76 incurred by the defendant in respect of the customs duties. 
18 Moreover, according to those courts, the customs duties paid in the course of the 
carriage of goods do not form part and cannot be regarded as forming part of the 
carriage charge and, therefore, the trader that provides the carriage services is 
under no obligation to make calculations as to how much it might cost the person 
who sends the goods to one country or another to fulfil the obligation imposed 
precisely on the person who disposes of the goods. 
The present chamber 
finds as follows: 
IV. Arguments of the court hearing the appeal on a point of law and its 
position in the preliminary ruling procedure 
19 The Chamber in the present case states its position and refers questions to the 
Court of Justice regarding the content and scope of the information to be provided 
to the consumer concerning (a) the main characteristics of the goods or services 
and (b) the total price of the goods or services, in the context of the legal 
relationship of international carriage. 
20 [Recital 27 of] Directive 2011/83 states that transport services cover passenger 
transport and transport of goods. Passenger transport should be excluded from the 
scope of that directive as it is already subject to other EU legislation or, in the case 
of public transport and taxis, to regulation at national level. However, the 
provisions of that directive protecting consumers against excessive fees for the use 
of means of payment or against hidden costs should apply also to passenger 
transport contracts. In relation to transport of goods and car rental which are 
services, consumers should benefit from the protection afforded by that directive, 
with the exception of the right of withdrawal. 
21 Thus, the transport of goods falls within the scope of Directive 2011/83. As 
already noted, the present case involved the international carriage of goods for the 
applicant’s personal use, and the legal relationship at issue must therefore be 
regarded as that of a consumer falling within the scope of Directive 2011/83. 
KIGAS 
 
7 
22 The Court of Justice has held that information, before concluding a contract, on 
the terms of the contract and the consequences of concluding it is of fundamental 
importance for a consumer. It is on the basis of that information in particular that 
he or she decides whether he or she wishes to be bound by the terms previously 
drawn up by the seller or supplier (CJEU, judgment of 21 March 2013, RWE 
Vertrieb, C-92/11, paragraph 44). 
23 Article 5(1) of Directive 2011/83 lists the consumer information for contracts 
other than distance or off-premises contracts. The provision at issue provides that, 
before the consumer is bound by a contract, the trader is to provide the consumer 
with, inter alia, the following information in a clear and comprehensible manner, 
if that information is not already apparent from the context: 
[–] the main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent 
appropriate to the medium and to the goods or services 
(Article 5(1)(a)); 
[–] the total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the 
nature of the goods or services is such that the price cannot reasonably 
be calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be 
calculated, as well as, where applicable, all additional freight, delivery 
or postal charges or, where those charges cannot reasonably be 
calculated in advance, the fact that such additional charges may be 
payable (Article 5(1)(c). 
24 Article 6.2286(5) of the Civil Code provides that the trader who has failed to 
comply or improperly complied with the obligation to provide information to the 
consumer must compensate for any loss suffered by that consumer. 
25 The present chamber notes that the case-law of the Court of Justice has not 
interpreted the provision in Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2011/83 relating to the 
obligation on the trader to provide the consumer with information on the main 
characteristics of the goods or services in the context of the legal relationship of 
carriage. Moreover, in the context of the legal relationship of international 
carriage, the Court of Justice has also not interpreted the provisions of 
Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83 relating to the obligation on the trader to 
provide the consumer with information on the total price of the goods or services 
as well as all additional freight, delivery or postal charges. 
26 According to Article 1(1) of the CMR Convention, the Convention is to apply to 
every contract for the carriage of goods by road in vehicles for reward, when the 
place of taking over of the goods and the place designated for delivery, as 
specified in the contract, are situated in two different countries, of which at least 
one is a Contracting country, irrespective of the place of residence and the 
nationality of the parties. [Article 1(4) of the] CMR Convention provides that the 
Convention is not to apply: (a) to carriage performed under the terms of any 
international postal convention; (b) to funeral consignments; (c) to furniture 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11. 7. 2024 – CASE C-488/24 
 
8  
removal. The CMR Convention does not provide that it excludes from its scope 
legal relationships relating to carriage for consumers and/or that the Convention 
applies only to commercial carriage. 
27 Both Norway and Lithuania are Contracting Parties to the CMR Convention. In 
the present case, it has not been established that the carriage was performed as 
part of a removal service. In those circumstances, it must be held that the dispute 
falls within the scope of the CMR Convention. 
28 Article 11(1) of the CMR Convention provides that, for the purposes of the 
Customs or other formalities which have to be completed before delivery of the 
goods, the sender is to attach the necessary documents to the consignment note or 
place them at the disposal of the carrier and is to furnish him with all the 
information which he requires, and Article 11(2) thereof provides that the carrier 
is not to be under any duty to inquire into either the accuracy or the adequacy of 
such documents and information. The sender is to be liable to the carrier for any 
damage caused by the absence, inadequacy or irregularity of such documents and 
information, except in the case of some wrongful act or neglect on the part of the 
carrier. 
29 The main question of law, concerning the interpretation and application of the 
provisions of Directive 2011/83, is therefore the scope and content of the 
obligation to provide information incumbent on the trader (the carrier). The 
answer to the question how the obligation on the trader to provide information to 
the consumer, as laid down in Article 5 of Directive 2011/83, is to be understood 
in relation to the customs procedures applicable in the course of international 
carriage will make it possible to determine which party must bear the adverse 
consequences of the improperly carried out customs procedures. 
30 The parties to the proceedings have fundamentally different interpretations of 
Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 2011/83 in the context of legal relationships 
relating to carriage for consumers (in the context of the CMR Convention). The 
applicant submits that the obligation on the trader to provide information to the 
consumer under Article 5 of Directive 2011/83 entails an obligation to provide the 
consumer with detailed information on customs duties, their rates and the 
documents necessary for the completion of customs formalities, and that it is only 
after the consumer has received such information that the obligation on the sender 
to provide the carrier with the documents and other information necessary for the 
completion of customs and other formalities, laid down by Article 11 of the CMR 
Convention, applies. The defendant, on the other hand, takes the view that a trader 
that provides a carriage service to a consumer is not obliged, under Article 5 of 
Directive 2011/83, to provide the consumer with information on customs 
procedures and/or customs duties or the documents necessary for customs 
procedures and, pursuant to Article 11 of the CMR Convention, that information 
must be provided to the trader by the consumer in his or her capacity as the 
sender. 
KIGAS 
 
9 
31 The present chamber is uncertain, first of all, whether Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 
2011/83, which requires the trader to provide the consumer with information on 
the characteristics of the services, must be interpreted as meaning that the trader 
that provides an international carriage service to the consumer is under an 
obligation to inform the consumer of the customs procedures applicable to the 
carriage. Moreover, if such an obligation is imposed on the trader, it is not clear 
whether it is sufficient for the trader to state that the sender (the consumer) must 
take charge of the documents necessary for the customs procedure and pay the 
customs duties, or whether the trader must provide detailed information on the 
specific documents to be presented to the customs authorities and the specific 
rates and amounts of the customs duties. 
32 The present chamber considers that the characteristics of the carriage service may 
be interpreted either strictly, that is to say, as covering only the legal relationship 
of carriage (the place where the goods are picked up, the place of delivery, the 
route, the price and so on), but not information on customs procedures and the 
documents required for those procedures, or broadly, that is to say, as including in 
the characteristics of the carriage service information on the customs procedures 
applicable to the carriage. In the view of the present chamber, if the characteristics 
of the carriage service are to be interpreted broadly, it must be determined whether 
it is sufficient for the trader to provide only general information that the 
international carriage of goods may be subject to customs procedures, or whether 
the concept of the characteristics of the service also includes detailed and specific 
information on the specific rates of duty applicable to the carriage and the specific 
documents to be presented for the customs procedures. 
33 The present chamber considers that it is necessary to take into account that, 
despite the fact that the carrier is a trader and a professional in its field, engaged in 
the international carriage of goods, it may be disproportionate to place on the 
carrier the burden of inquiring into the specificities of each of the goods to be 
handed over to it for carriage, as well as the requirements applicable to the 
carriage of those goods in various foreign countries, and of calculating the 
customs duty for each carriage. It is usually the sender who is the most familiar 
with the characteristics and peculiarities of the goods and the purpose of the 
carriage. In the view of the present chamber, even if the characteristics of the 
carriage service include an obligation on the part of the trader to provide 
information to the consumer that the goods carried may be subject to customs 
procedures, that information should be of a general nature only, without requiring 
the trader to indicate to the consumer the specific documents to be presented to the 
customs authorities and to calculate and inform the consumer of the specific 
amounts of customs duties applicable. 
34 The referring court is also uncertain whether the obligation on the trader, laid 
down in Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83, to provide the consumer with 
information on the price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the 
nature of the goods or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be 
calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be calculated, as well as, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11. 7. 2024 – CASE C-488/24 
 
10  
where applicable, all additional freight, delivery or postage charges or, where 
those charges cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the fact that such 
charges may be payable, entails an obligation on the trader that provides the 
international carriage service to inform the consumer of the customs duties (the 
rates and amounts of the duties) applicable to the specific carriage. 
35 In the view of the present chamber, Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83 could also 
be interpreted strictly or broadly. In the event that the price of the carriage service 
as well as, where applicable, all additional freight, delivery or postage charges are 
to be interpreted strictly, that is to say, as not including customs duties, the trader 
is not obliged to provide the consumer with specific information on the rates and 
amounts of customs duties applicable to the carriage, or to calculate the customs 
duty. On the other hand, a broad interpretation of that provision would require the 
trader to provide the consumer with information on the specific rates and amounts 
of customs duties (to calculate the duty) or on the fact that additional charges of 
that kind may be payable. 
36 It should be noted that the answers to the questions examined are necessary in 
order to determine which party is to bear the costs incurred during carriage (the 
customs duties paid by the defendant) as a result of the improperly carried out 
customs procedures. 
The Chamber of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, […] 
[standard procedural wording] 
orders as follows: 
The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling: 
1. Must Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2011/83, which requires the trader to 
provide the consumer with information on the characteristics of the services, be 
interpreted as meaning that the trader that provides an international carriage 
service to the consumer is under an obligation to inform the consumer of the 
customs procedures applicable to the carriage? If Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 
2011/83 must be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the trader to inform the 
consumer of the customs procedures applicable to international carriage, is it 
sufficient for the trader to state that the sender (the consumer) must take charge of 
the documents necessary for the customs procedures and pay the customs duties, 
or must the trader provide detailed information (a list) on the specific documents 
to be presented to the customs authorities and the applicable rates (amounts) of 
the customs duties? 
2. Does the obligation on the trader, laid down in Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 
2011/83, to provide the consumer with information on the price of the goods or 
services inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the goods or services is such 
that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner in which 
the price is to be calculated, as well as, where applicable, all additional freight, 
KIGAS 
 
11 
delivery or postage charges or, where those charges cannot reasonably be 
calculated in advance, the fact that such charges may be payable, entail an 
obligation on the trader that provides the international carriage service to inform 
the consumer of the customs duties (the rates and amounts of the duties) 
applicable to the specific carriage? 
[…] 
[standard procedural wording] 
[…] 
[composition of the court]