Case C-641/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — EU v PE Digital GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Point 11 of Article 2, Article 14(3) and Article 16(m) — Distance contract — Supply of digital content and digital services — Right of withdrawal — Obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal — Determination of the amount to be paid by the consumer for the services provided before the exercise of the right of withdrawal — Exception to the right of withdrawal in the case of the supply of digital content)
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer price, consumer protection, digital content, digital distribution, termination of a contract








C_2020414EN.01001302.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/13






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — EU v PE Digital GmbH
(Case C-641/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Point 11 of Article 2, Article 14(3) and Article 16(m) - Distance contract - Supply of digital content and digital services - Right of withdrawal - Obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal - Determination of the amount to be paid by the consumer for the services provided before the exercise of the right of withdrawal - Exception to the right of withdrawal in the case of the supply of digital content)
(2020/C 414/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EU

Defendant: PE Digital GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the proportionate amount to be paid by the consumer to the trader where that consumer has expressly requested that the performance of the contract concluded begin during the withdrawal period and withdraws from that contract, it is appropriate, in principle, to take account of the price agreed in the contract for the full coverage of the contract and to calculate the amount owed pro rata temporis. It is only where the contract concluded expressly provides that one or more of the services are to be provided in full from the beginning of the performance of the contract and separately, for a price which must be paid separately, that the full price for such a service should be taken into account in the calculation of the amount owed to the trader under Article 14(3) of that directive.










2.


Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83, read in the light of recital 50 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the total price is excessive within the meaning of that provision, account should be taken of the price of the service offered by the trader concerned to other consumers under the same conditions and that of the equivalent service supplied by other traders at the time of the conclusion of the contract.










3.


Article 16(m) of Directive 2011/83, read in conjunction with point 11 of Article 2 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the generation of a personality report by a dating website on the basis of a personality test carried out by that website does not constitute the supply of ‘digital content’ within the meaning of that provision.






(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.