Case C‑497/13

Froukje Faber

v

Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/44/EC — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Status of the purchaser — Consumer status — Lack of conformity of the goods delivered — Duty to inform the seller — Lack of conformity which became apparent within six months of delivery of the goods — Burden of proof’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 4 June 2015

Approximation of laws — Consumer protection — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Directive 1999/44 — National legislation which imposes on the consumer a duty to inform the seller of the lack of conformity in good time — Whether permissible — Conditions

Approximation of laws — Consumer protection — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Directive 1999/44 — Lack of conformity of the goods delivered — Lack of conformity which became apparent within six months of delivery of the goods — Lack of conformity which is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery — Burden of proof

Approximation of laws — Consumer protection — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Directive 1999/44 — Scope — Obligation for the national court to determine consumer status — Purchaser who has not relied on that status — No effect

See the text of the decision. (see para. 33)

Directive 1999/44 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as meaning that a national court before which an action relating to a contract which may be covered by that directive has been brought, is required to determine whether the purchaser may be classified as a consumer within the meaning of that directive, even if the purchaser has not relied on that status, as soon as that court has at its disposal the matters of law and of fact that are necessary for that purpose or may have them at its disposal simply by making a request for clarification. Detailed procedural rules which would prevent both the court at first instance and the appellate court, before which a guarantee or warranty claim based on a contract of sale has been brought, from classifying, on the basis of the matters of fact and of law which they have at their disposal or may have at their disposal simply by making a request for clarification, the contractual relationship in question as a sale to a consumer, if the consumer has not expressly claimed to have that status, would be tantamount to making the consumer subject to the obligation to carry out a full legal classification of his situation himself, failing which he would lose the rights which the EU legislature intended to confer on him by means of Directive 1999/44. It follows that such detailed procedural rules would not comply with the principle of effectiveness inasmuch as they would make the application of the protection which Directive 1999/44 seeks to confer on consumers excessively difficult in actions to enforce a warranty or guarantee which are based on a lack of conformity and to which those consumers are parties. (see paras 44, 45, 48, operative part 1)

Article 5(3) of Directive 1999/44 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as meaning that it must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to a national rule which ranks, within the domestic legal system, as a rule of public policy and that the national court must of its own motion apply any provision which transposes it into domestic law. The apportionment of the burden of proof under that provision is, in accordance with Article 7 of that directive, binding in nature both for the parties, who may not derogate from it by means of an agreement, and for the Member States, which must ensure that it is complied with. It follows that that rule relating to the burden of proof must be applied even though it has not been expressly relied on by the consumer who may benefit from it. Article 5(3) of Directive 1999/44 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule that the lack of conformity is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery of the goods — applies if the consumer furnishes evidence that the goods sold are not in conformity with the contract and that the lack of conformity in question became apparent, that is to say, became physically apparent, within six months of delivery of the goods. The consumer is not required to prove the cause of that lack of conformity or to establish that its origin is attributable to the seller; — may be discounted only if the seller proves to the requisite legal standard that the cause or origin of that lack of conformity lies in circumstances which arose after the delivery of the goods. (see paras 55, 57, 75, operative part 2, 4)