Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba SA and Automóviles Citroën España SA.
Date: 2013-10-03
25. In that regard, it should be pointed out that the purpose of Directive 1999/44, as stated in recital 1 in the preamble thereto, is to ensure a high level of consumer protection (Case C‑404/06 Quelle  [2008] ECR I‑2685, paragraph 36).
27. Accordingly, under Article 3(1) of that directive, the seller is to be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time at which the goods were delivered (see Quelle , paragraph 26, and Joined Cases C‑65/09 and C‑87/09 Gebr. Weber and Putz  [2011] ECR I‑5257, paragraph 43).
28. Article 3(2) of Directive 1999/44 lists the rights on which the consumer may rely against the seller in cases where there is a lack of conformity in the goods delivered. In the first place, under Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44, the consumer has the right to require that the goods be brought into conformity. If that is not possible, he may subsequently, in accordance with Article 3(5) thereof, seek a reduction in the price or rescission of the contract (see Quelle , paragraph 27, and Gebr. Weber and Putz , paragraph 44). However, as is apparent from Article 3(6) of the directive, where the lack of conformity in the goods delivered is minor, the consumer is not entitled to have the contract rescinded and, in such a case, may request only an appropriate reduction in the price of the goods at issue.
31. Thus, in the absence of European Union legislation, the procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding the rights that individuals derive from Directive 1999/44 fall within the internal legal order of the Member States by virtue of the principle of procedural autonomy of those Member States. However, those rules must not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) or such as to make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by European Union law (principle of effectiveness) (see, to that effect, Case C‑472/11 Banif Plus Bank [2013] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 26 and the case‑law cited).
34. As regards the principle of effectiveness, it is the Court’s settled case-law that every case in which the question arises as to whether a national procedural provision makes the application of European Union law impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national bodies (Case C‑618/10 Banco Español de Crédito [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 49, and Case C‑415/11 Aziz [2013] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 53).
38. In that regard, it must none the less be stated that, taking into account the progress and the special features of the Spanish procedural system, such an eventuality must be regarded as very improbable because there is a significant risk that the consumer in question will not put forward an alternative claim which would seek, moreover, relief inferior to that sought in the principal claim, either on account of the particularly rigid requirement that the alternative claim be presented at the same time as the principal claim or because the consumer is unaware of, or does not appreciate, the extent of his rights (see, by analogy, Aziz , paragraph 58).
39. In those circumstances, it must be held that such procedural rules are liable to undermine the effectiveness of the consumer protection intended by the European Union legislature in so far as they do not allow the national court to recognise of its motion the right of the consumer to obtain an appropriate reduction in the price of the goods, even though that consumer is not entitled to refine his initial application or to bring a fresh action to that end.
42. That said, it is for the referring court to identify which national rules are applicable to the dispute before it and to do whatever lies within its jurisdiction, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, with a view to ensuring that Article 3(5) of Directive 1999/44 is fully effective and to achieving an outcome which is consistent with the objective pursued by that directive (see, to that effect, Case C‑282/10 Dominguez  [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).