Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2008:231
Date: 2008-04-17
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Concepts: Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice;Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits (Art. 234 EC) 2. Approximation of laws – Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees – Directive 1999/44 (European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/44, Art. 3) 1. In proceedings under Article 234 EC, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, and which must determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it. In that context, the uncertainty as to whether the national court – following an answer given by the Court of Justice to a question referred for a preliminary ruling relating to interpretation of a directive – may, in compliance with the principles laid down by the Court, interpret national law in the light of that answer cannot affect the Court’s obligation to rule on that question. Any other approach would be incompatible with the very aim of the powers given to the Court by Article 234 EC, which are intended, in essence, to ensure the uniform application of Community law by the national courts. (see paras 19-22) 2. Article 3 of Directive 1999/44/EC on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a seller who has sold consumer goods which are not in conformity may require the consumer to pay compensation for the use of those defective goods until their replacement with new goods. It follows from the wording of the Directive, as well as from the related travaux préparatoires, that the Community legislature intended to make the ‘free of charge’ aspect of the seller’s obligation to bring goods into conformity an essential element of the protection afforded to consumers by the Directive. The ‘free of charge’ requirement attaching to the seller’s obligation to bring the goods into conformity, whether by repair or replacement, is intended to protect consumers from the risk of financial burdens which might dissuade them from asserting their rights in the absence of such protection. The certain nature of the ‘free of charge’ aspect, which was intentional on the part of the Community legislature, means that the seller cannot make any financial claim in connection with the performance of its obligation to bring into conformity the goods to which the contract relates. Furthermore, the ‘free of charge’ aspect of the seller’s obligation to bring goods into conformity is consistent with the purpose of the Directive which is to ensure a high level of consumer protection. (see paras 33-34, 36, 43, operative part)