Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)
26 March 2026 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 98/6/EC – Indication of the prices of products – Article 2(a) – Concept of ‘selling price’ – Online sales – Flat-rate processing costs for a total order with a value below a minimum amount – Exclusion of those costs from the selling price of the product concerned )
In Case C‑62/25,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany), made by decision of 23 January 2025, received at the Court on 29 January 2025, in the proceedings
Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.
v
JZ,
THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),
composed of O. Spineanu-Matei, President of the Chamber, N. Piçarra (Rapporteur) and N. Fenger, Judges,
Advocate General: N. Emiliou,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
–        the Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V., by P. Wassermann, Rechtsanwalt,
–        the German Government, by J. Möller and P. Wagner, acting as Agents,
–        the European Commission, by P. Kienapfel and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ 1998 L 80, p.27).
2        The request has been made in proceedings between the Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (Federal Union of Consumer Organisations and Associations, Germany) (‘the BV’) and JZ, which operates an online store, concerning whether there is an obligation to include, in the selling price of goods offered on its website, flat-rate processing fees payable where the value of an order is below a minimum amount.
Legal context
European Union law
3        Recitals 2, 6 and 12 of Directive 98/6 state as follows:
‘(2)       … consumers must be guaranteed a high level of protection; … the [European] Community should contribute thereto by specific action which supports and supplements the policy pursued by the Member States regarding precise, transparent and unambiguous information for consumers on the prices of products offered to them;
…
(6)      … the obligation to indicate the selling price and the unit price contributes substantially to improving consumer information, as this is the easiest way to enable consumers to evaluate and compare the price of products in an optimum manner and hence to make informed choices on the basis of simple comparisons;
…
(12)      … Community-level rules can ensure homogenous and transparent information that will benefit all consumers in the context of the internal market …’
4        Article 1 of the Directive is worded as follows:
‘The purpose of this Directive is to stipulate indication of the selling price and the price per unit of measurement of products offered by traders to consumers in order to improve consumer information and to facilitate comparison of prices.’
5        Article 2 of that directive provides:
‘For the purposes of this Directive:
(a)       selling price shall mean the final price for a unit of the product, or a given quantity of the product, including [value added tax (VAT)] and all other taxes;
…’
6        Article 4(1) of that directive provides as follows:
‘The selling price and the unit price must be unambiguous, easily identifiable and clearly legible. …’
German law
7        Paragraph 2(3) of the Preisangabenverordnung (Regulation on the indication of prices), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the PAngV’), provides:
‘For the purpose of the present Regulation:
…
3.      “total price” shall mean the price, including turnover tax and other components of the price, which must be paid for a product or service.’
8        Paragraph 3(1) of the PAngV is worded as follows:
‘A person who, as a trader, offers goods or services to consumers or who, as a supplier of goods or services, advertises to consumers by indicating prices of those goods or services must indicate the total price.’
9        Paragraph 6(1) and (2) of the PAngV states as follows:
‘(1)      Any person who, as a trader, offers goods or services to consumers with a view to concluding a distance contract must, in addition to the information required under Paragraph 3(1) and (2) and Paragraph 4(1) and (2), indicate
1.      that the prices charged for the goods or services include [VAT] and other components of the price, and
2.      whether transport, delivery, dispatch or other additional costs are payable.
(2)      If transport, delivery, dispatch or other additional costs are payable, the amount thereof must be indicated in so far as they can reasonably be calculated in advance.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
10      JZ markets consumables, accessories and spare parts for vacuum cleaners via the website www.staubsaugerservice.de. On 1 June 2022, it offered vacuum cleaner bags on that website at a price of EUR 14.90, including the words ‘free 24-hour delivery throughout Germany’ and ‘free shipping’ in the header of the webpage.
11      To the right of the indication of the price there was an asterisk. By moving the cursor over the asterisk, the following message appeared: ‘Includes VAT, plus additional costs’. The indication of the price itself remained unchanged. Clicking on the asterisk directed the customer to a sub-page of the website containing the following information:
‘Additional costs’
… Depending on the value of the goods, a non-refundable processing fee of between EUR 3.95 (for goods with a value of EUR 11 or over) and EUR 9 (for goods with a value below EUR 11) may be charged. Where the value of the goods is EUR 29 or above, that processing fee/surcharge is not generally payable.’
12      Once the customer had placed the product in the shopping basket, when he or she looked at the contents of that basket, the indication of a price of EUR 14.90 appeared along with an amount of EUR 3.95, labelled ‘Surcharge/discount: small-orders (not applicable to purchases of EUR 29 or over)’.
13      Taking the view that that indication of price was unfair, the BV brought an action before the Landgericht Hannover (Regional Court, Hanover, Germany), seeking, inter alia, that JZ be ordered to cease offering goods on the internet indicating prices in which the flat-rate processing costs were not included. That court upheld the action.
14      On appeal by JZ, the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Higher Regional Court, Celle, Germany) dismissed the BV’s action
finding that the flat-rate processing fees, charged only where the total value of the order, including the product concerned and any other products, is below a certain amount, must be indicated separately, since they do not constitute a component of the total price of the product concerned.
15      The BV brought an appeal on a point of law (Revision) against that decision before the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany), which is the referring court. According to that court, the answer to the question whether flat-rate processing fees, from which the customer is exempt only if the value of his order exceeds a certain amount, must be included in the selling price of a unit of product as provided for in Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6, is not clear from the wording of that provision, which defines the selling price as the ‘final price for a unit of the product’, but also for ‘a given quantity of the product’.
16      Recalling the case-law of the Court whereby the selling price of a product must necessarily include the unavoidable and foreseeable components of the price, which are necessarily payable by the consumer and constitute the pecuniary consideration for the acquisition of that product, that court is uncertain, more specifically, whether the flat-rate processing costs at issue are unavoidable and foreseeable for the consumer. The referring court tends towards the conclusion that those costs ought not to be included in the selling price within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6. In its view, the best way to avoid misleading the consumer is, first, to indicate the selling price, excluding the flat-rate processing fee, and, second, to warn the consumer that those fees are payable below a certain order threshold, indicating their amount.
17      In those circumstances, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Must a flat-rate handling fee which is waived only if the total order value exceeds a minimum amount be factored into the selling price to be indicated for a unit of measurement of the product within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive [98/6]?’
Consideration of the question referred
18      By its single question, the referring court is, in essence, asking whether Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘selling price’ must include flat-rate processing costs which (i) vary according to the total amount of the order placed by the purchaser for the product concerned and any other products, and (ii) are payable only if the total value of that order is below a minimum amount.
19      Under Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6, the selling price is defined as the final price for a unit of the product, or a given quantity of the product, including VAT and all other taxes.
20      As a final price, the selling price must necessarily include the unavoidable and foreseeable components of the price, which are necessarily payable by the consumer and constitute the pecuniary consideration for the acquisition of the product concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 June 2023, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb (Containers on which a deposit is charged), C‑543/21, EU:C:2023:527, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
21      It is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling, first, that flat-rate processing fees are applied only where the total amount of the products purchased is below a minimum value. Second, when those flat-rate costs are payable, the amount of such costs varies according to the total amount of the products purchased.
22      While the flat-rate processing costs are included in the pecuniary consideration relating to the acquisition of the product concerned, they cannot, however, be regarded as being ‘necessarily’ payable by the consumer. Indeed, the consumer can avoid paying those costs by purchasing a number of, possibly different, products so as to reach the minimum value required. It is, however, for the national court to ascertain whether that possibility of avoiding paying the flat-rate processing costs is genuine, having regard in particular to the amount of that minimum value.
23      The inclusion of those costs in the ‘selling price’, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6, is therefore capable of undermining the final nature of that price, for the purposes of the case-law referred to in paragraph 20 of the present judgment. Therefore, they must not be included in that concept of ‘selling price’.
24      That interpretation is supported by the objectives pursued by Directive 98/6, set out in Article 1 thereof, read in the light of recital 6 of that directive, namely to improve consumer information and to facilitate the comparison of the selling prices of products offered by traders to consumers in order to enable them to make informed choices. In that regard, recital 12 of Directive 98/6 states that that directive seeks to ensure homogenous and transparent information that will benefit all consumers in the context of the internal market.
25      In addition, in accordance with Article 4(1) of that directive, read in the light of recital 2 thereof, the selling price of products offered to consumers must be unambiguous, easily identifiable and clearly legible, so that consumers have information which is precise, transparent and unambiguous.
26      In the present case, first, only some purchases of the product concerned are subject to flat-rate processing costs, that is to say, where the total value of the order is below a minimum amount. Second, different flat-rate processing costs may be applied depending on the total value of the purchase. In those circumstances, the inclusion of those costs in the selling price of the product, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6, exposes consumers to the risk of making incorrect comparisons (see, by analogy, judgment of 29 June 2023, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb (Containers on which a deposit is charged), C‑543/21, EU:C:2023:527, paragraph 26).
27      By contrast, as the referring court correctly points out, the amount of any flat-rate processing fees which may be applicable being clearly indicated separately and in addition to the selling price of the product concerned, enables consumers to evaluate and compare the prices of such a product and to make informed choices on the basis of simple comparisons, in accordance with the objectives pursued by Directive 98/6, referred to in paragraph 24 of the present judgment, and with the requirement of transparency and the absence of any ambiguity in those prices, set out in recital 2 of that directive (see, by analogy, judgment of 29 June 2023, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb (Containers on which a deposit is charged), C‑543/21, EU:C:2023:527, paragraph 27).
28      In that context, an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect is able to add together the price of the product and the amount of any flat-rate costs in order to determine the total amount which he is required to pay on the date of purchase (see, by analogy, judgment of 29 June 2023, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb (Containers on which a deposit is charged), C‑543/21, EU:C:2023:527, paragraph 28).
29      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘selling price’ does not have to include flat-rate processing costs which (i) vary according to the total amount of the order placed by the purchaser for the product concerned and any other products, and (ii) are payable only if the total value of that order is below a minimum amount established by the seller, in so far as those costs are indicated clearly and that amount is not set in such a way as to make payment of those costs unavoidable in practice.
Costs
30      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers
must be interpreted as meaning that
the concept of ‘selling price’ does not have to include flat-rate processing costs which (i) vary according to the total amount of the order placed by the purchaser for the product concerned and any other products, and (ii) are payable only if the total value of that order is below a minimum amount established by the seller, in so far as those costs are indicated clearly and that amount is not set in such a way as to make payment of those costs unavoidable in practice.
[Signatures]
*      Language of the case: German.