Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:846
Date: 2020-10-21
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Anonymised version 
Translation C-529/19 — 1 
Case C-529/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
11 July 2019 
Referring court: 
Amtsgericht Potsdam (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
12 June 2019 
Applicant: 
Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG 
Defendant: 
ML 
  
Amtsgericht Potsdam (Local Court, Potsdam) 
Order 
In the case of 
Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG, [...] Fredersdorf-Vogelsdorf 
applicant 
[...] 
v 
ML, [...] Potsdam 
defendant 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12.6.2019 — CASE C-529/19 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
[...] 
the Amtsgericht Potsdam (Local Court, Potsdam) [...] ordered on 12 June 2019: 
1. Reference is made to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to 
Article 267 TFEU for a preliminary ruling on the following question 
concerning the interpretation of EU law: 
Is the right of withdrawal under Article 16(c) of the Consumer Rights 
Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU) also excluded where goods are made to 
the consumer’s specifications but the seller has not yet [Or. 2] begun to 
manufacture the goods and would be making adjustments to them itself at 
the consumer’s premises, not through a third party? Does the answer depend 
on whether it would be possible to return the goods to the state they were in 
before customisation with only low dismantling costs, such as some 5 
percent of the value of the goods? 
2. The proceedings are stayed pending a preliminary ruling from the Court of 
Justice of the European Union on the question referred in paragraph 1 above. 
Grounds: 
The applicant has brought an action for damages against the defendant on the 
ground that the defendant did not take delivery of a fitted kitchen, which it 
purchased from the applicant at an agricultural fair, but instead withdrew from the 
contract. The parts of the kitchen which the applicant had not yet begun to 
manufacture at the time of the withdrawal were to be digitally assembled on 
production lines by another company according to a hole pattern and fitted on-site 
at the defendant’s premises by employees of the applicant, not of another 
company; the prefabricated parts could have been dismantled without any loss, but 
the niche back wall, worktop, trimming and connecting pieces would have been 
adjusted on-site and it would not have been possible to reuse them elsewhere. 
Under the provision applicable in the present case, Paragraph 312g(2)(1) of the 
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code), which transposes Article 16 of the 
Consumer Rights Directive, there is no right of withdrawal in respect of contracts 
for the supply of goods that are not prefabricated and the production of which is 
governed by an individual choice of, or decision by, the consumer or that are 
clearly personalised for the consumer. The issue to be determined is whether the 
right of withdrawal is also excluded if: 
1.  the seller had not yet begun, at the time of the withdrawal, to have the goods 
assembled from the parts; and 
2.  it would have adjusted them on-site itself, not through a third party; and [Or. 
3] 
MÖBEL KRAFT 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
3.  the goods could be returned to the condition they were in before 
customisation with only low dismantling costs, such as some 5 per cent of the 
value of the goods. 
In its case-law prior to the entry into force of the Consumer Rights Directive, for 
example in its decision of 19 March 2003 — VIII ZR 295/01, the 
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) presumed that the right of 
withdrawal is not excluded if the goods could be returned, with relatively small 
expenditure, to the condition they were in prior to customisation without loss of 
substance and functionality, in that particular case in relation to a built-to-order 
computer, where the Bundesgerichtshof regarded dismantling costs amounting to 
5 per cent of the value of the goods as relatively small expenditure. According to 
the case-law of the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Higher Regional Court, Stuttgart) 
(judgment of 19 September 2017, 6 U 76/16), the right of withdrawal may be 
excluded where the trader has not yet begun to manufacture the goods or 
customise them to personal needs. However, academic writers have argued [...] 
that the right of withdrawal is also not excluded in those circumstances. 
[...] [Stay of proceedings] 
[...]