Case C-497/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 September 2013 — F. Faber v Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV
Date: 2013-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Netherlands, consumer protection, contract, delivery, judge, public order, sale








C_2013367EN.01002102.xml










14.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 September 2013 — F. Faber v Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV
(Case C-497/13)
2013/C 367/37
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: F. Faber

Defendant: Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV

Questions referred







1.


Is the national court, either on the grounds of the principle of effectiveness, or on the grounds of the high level of consumer protection within the European Union sought by Directive 1999/44, (1) or on the grounds of other provisions or norms of European law, obliged to investigate of its own motion whether, in relation to a contract, the purchaser is (a) consumer within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 1999/44?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does it also apply if the case file contains no (or insufficient or contradictory) information to enable the status of the purchaser to be determined?










3.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does it also apply to appeal proceedings, where the purchaser has not raised any complaint against the judgment of the court of first instance, to the extent that in that judgment that assessment (of its own motion) was not carried out, and the question of whether the purchaser may be deemed to be a consumer was expressly left open?










4.


Must (Article 5 of) Directive 1999/44 be regarded as a norm which is equivalent to the national rules which in the internal legal system are deemed to be rules of public policy?










5.


Do the principle of effectiveness, the high level of consumer protection within the European Union sought by Directive 1999/44 or other provisions or norms of European Union law preclude Netherlands law relating to the burden resting on the consumer-purchaser of presenting the facts and adducing the evidence in relation to the duty of notifying the seller (in good time) of the presumed lack of conformity of delivered goods?










6.


Do the principle of effectiveness, the high level of consumer protection within the European Union sought by Directive 1999/44 or other provisions or norms of European Union law preclude Netherlands law relating to the burden resting on the consumer-purchaser of presenting the facts and adducing the evidence that the goods are not in conformity and that that lack of conformity became apparent within six months of delivery? What is the meaning of the words ‘any lack of conformity which becomes apparent’ in Article 5(3) of Directive 1999/44 and in particular: to what extent must the consumer-purchaser establish facts and circumstances concerning (the cause of) the lack of conformity? Is it sufficient in that regard that the consumer-purchaser establish, and in the case of a substantiated challenge prove, that the purchased goods do not function (well), or must he also establish, and in the case of a substantiated challenge prove, which defect in the purchased goods caused the purchased goods not to function (well)?










7.


Does the fact that Ms Faber has been assisted by a lawyer in both instances in these proceedings still play a role when answering the foregoing questions?






(1)  Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ L 171, p. 12).