Christian Fülla v Toolport GmbH.
Date: 2019-05-23
25


In that regard, it should be recalled that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of EU law, the Court is in principle required to give a ruling. It follows that questions relating to EU law enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court for a preliminary ruling only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 7 March 2018, flightright and Others, C‑274/16, C‑447/16 and C‑448/16, C‑74/16, EU:C:2018:160, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).
30


As a preliminary point, it must be borne in mind that, by virtue of Article 3(2) of Directive 1999/44, in cases where the goods delivered are not in conformity, the consumer has the right to require either the goods to be brought into conformity, by repair or replacement, in accordance with Article 3(3) of that directive, or, if that is not possible, an appropriate reduction in the price or the rescission of the contract, in accordance with Article 3(5) and (6) thereof (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 April 2008, Quelle, C‑404/06, EU:C:2008:231, paragraph 27).
32


In that regard, it must be noted that, although Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44 does not specify the place where goods not in conformity are to be made available to the seller to be repaired or replaced, the fact remains that that provision lays down certain conditions which are intended to place limits on the bringing of those goods into conformity. Thus, any repair or replacement must be made free of charge, within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer. That triple requirement is the expression of the intention of the EU legislature to ensure effective protection for the consumer (judgment of 16 June 2011, Gebr. Weber and Putz, C‑65/09 and C‑87/09, EU:C:2011:396, paragraph 52).
34


Thus, with regard, first, to the ‘free of charge’ requirement attaching to the seller’s obligation to bring the goods into conformity, which means that the seller cannot make any financial claim in connection with the performance of its obligation to bring the goods into conformity, whether by repair or replacement, is intended to protect consumers from the risk of financial burdens which might dissuade them from asserting their rights in the absence of such protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 April 2008, Quelle, C‑404/06, EU:C:2008:231, paragraph 34), it must be noted that it cannot be made subject to the place where the consumer is required to make goods acquired under a distance contract available to the seller for them to be brought into conformity.
41


In that regard, it is necessary to take account of the fact that Article 3 of Directive 1999/44 seeks to strike a fair balance between the interests of the consumer and the seller, by guaranteeing the consumer, as the weak party to the contract, complete and effective protection from faulty performance by the seller of his contractual obligations, while enabling account to be taken of economic considerations advanced by the seller (judgment of 16 June 2011, Gebr. Weber and Putz, C‑65/09 and C‑87/09, EU:C:2011:396, paragraph 75).
47


In applying the national law thus adopted, national courts called upon to interpret that law are required to consider the whole body of rules of that law and to apply methods of interpretation that are recognised by those rules in order to interpret it, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of Directive 1999/44 in order to achieve the result pursued by the directive and thus to comply with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU. That requirement to interpret national law in conformity with EU law includes the obligation for national courts to change their established case-law, where necessary, if it is based on an interpretation of national law that is incompatible with the objectives of that directive (judgment of 19 April 2016, DI, C‑441/14, EU:C:2016:278, paragraphs 31 and 33 and the case-law cited).
51


As follows from the case-law cited in paragraph 34 of the present judgment, that obligation to bring goods into conformity free of charge, which the EU legislature intended to make an essential element of the protection guaranteed to consumers by Directive 1999/44, seeks to protect consumers from the risk of financial burdens which might dissuade them from asserting their rights in the absence of such protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 April 2008, Quelle, C‑404/06, EU:C:2008:231, paragraphs 33 and 34).
52


At the same time, as has already been noted in paragraph 41 of this judgment, that directive not only seeks to protect the interests of the consumer by guaranteeing him complete and effective protection from faulty performance by the seller of his contractual obligations, but also seeks to strike a balance between those interests and any economic considerations advanced by the seller (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 June 2011, Gebr. Weber and Putz, C‑65/09 and C‑87/09, EU:C:2011:396, paragraph 75).
61


In that regard, in so far as it follows from Article 3(3) and (5) of Directive 1999/44, read in the light of recital 10 thereof, that that directive favours, in the interest of both parties to the contract, the performance of that contract by means of the two remedies first provided for, rather than the rescission of the contract (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 June 2011, Gebr. Weber and Putz, C‑65/09 and C‑87/09, EU:C:2011:396, paragraph 72), that directive provides, to that end, where goods are not in conformity, certain positive obligations for both the consumer and the seller.
65


In that regard, it must be held that the consumer, who clearly informed the seller of the existence of a lack of conformity in an item acquired under a distance contract, the transport of which to the place of business of the seller was likely to cause him a significant inconvenience, and who made the item available to the seller at his home for it to be brought into conformity, without having obtained, in return, any information from the seller regarding the place where the item was to be made available to it to be brought into conformity or any other adequate positive action to that end and who therefore did not make the item available to the seller in the place in question, satisfied the obligation of diligence imposed on him by the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44 (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 June 2015, Faber, C‑497/13, EU:C:2015:357, paragraphs 61 to 63).