CELEX: 62017CN0649
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-649/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2017 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Amazon EU Sàrl

26.3.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 112/7
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2017 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Amazon EU Sàrl
   (Case C-649/17)
   (2018/C 112/11)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Bundesgerichtshof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.
   
      Respondent: Amazon EU Sàrl
   
      Questions referred
   
   The following questions regarding the interpretation of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (1) are referred for a preliminary ruling:
   
               1.
            
            
               May Member States enact a provision that — like the provision in Article 246a(1)(1), first sentence, No 2, of the EGBGB (Introductory Law to the Civil Code) — obliges a trader to make his telephone number available to the consumer (not just where available but) always when entering into distance contracts prior to acceptance of the contract?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Does the expression ‘gegebenenfalls’ (‘where available’) used in (the German language version of) Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU mean that a trader must provide information only about the communication methods already actually available in his undertaking, meaning that he is not required to set up a new telephone or fax connection or e-mail account when he decides also to enter into distance contracts in his undertaking?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 2 is yes:
               Does the expression ‘gegebenenfalls’ (‘where available’) used in (the German language version of) Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU mean that only those communication methods are already available in an undertaking that are actually also used by the trader [Or. 3] to contact consumers when entering into distance contracts, or are those communication methods also available in the undertaking that are used by the trader up to that time exclusively for other purposes, such as communication with other traders or authorities?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Is the list of communication methods specified in Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU, namely, telephone, fax and e-mail, exhaustive, or may the trader also use other communication methods that are not mentioned there, such as internet chats or a telephone callback system, provided that this ensures quick contact and efficient communication?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Does the application of the transparency requirement of Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU, according to which the trader must inform the consumer of the communication methods set out in Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU in a clear and comprehensible manner, depend on the information being supplied quickly and efficiently?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64.