(1) For the purposes of applying Article 8(4) of Directive [2011/83], does the answer to the question whether a means of distance communication (in this instance, an advertising leaflet containing a mail order coupon) allows limited space or time to display information depend on whether (a) (in the abstract) the means of distance communication allows only limited space or time by its very nature, or (b) (in the particular case) it offers limited space or time in the design selected for it by the trader?

The assessment should consider all technical features of the communication, not just the trader's design choices.

(2) Is it compatible with Article 8(4) and Article 6(1)(h) of Directive [2011/83] for information on the right of withdrawal to be restricted to an indication of the existence of a right of withdrawal, in the case, as provided for in Article 8(4) of Directive [2011/83], where there is limited scope for displaying that information?

No, traders must provide information on conditions, time limits, and procedures for withdrawal if space is limited.

(3) Do Article 8(4) and Article 6(1)(h) of Directive [2011/83] make it a mandatory requirement in all cases, including in a case where there is limited scope for displaying information, for the model withdrawal form set out in Annex I(B) to Directive [2011/83] to be attached to the means of distance communication before a distance contract is concluded?

The model withdrawal form must be provided through another source in plain and intelligible language if space is limited.

Traders must provide withdrawal information and model form via alternative sources if space is limited.

European Court of Justice · Judgment · Preliminary ruling

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Distance contracts — Article 6(1)(h) — Obligation to provide information on the right of withdrawal — Article 8(4) — Contract concluded through a means of distance communication which allows limited space or time to display the information — Meaning of ‘limited space or time to display the information’ — Brochure inserted in a periodical — Mail order coupon containing a hyperlink referring to information on the right of withdrawal)

Rechtsvraag

The central legal issue is whether the means of distance communication used by a trader, such as an advertising leaflet with a mail order coupon, allows limited space or time to display information, and how the obligations to provide pre-contractual information, particularly regarding the right of withdrawal, are to be fulfilled under Article 6(1)(h) and Article 8(4) of Directive 2011/83/EU.

Regel

Art. 6(1)(h), Directive 2011/83/EU (Consumer protection - Information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts - Obligation to inform about right of withdrawal)
Art. 8(4), Directive 2011/83/EU (Formal requirements for distance contracts - Limited space or time to display information)

Conclusie

The Court concluded that the assessment of whether a means of communication has limited space or time must consider the technical features and space available in the communication. Traders are required to provide information on the right of withdrawal in the communication itself, with additional details provided elsewhere if necessary. This interpretation ensures consumer protection while acknowledging the constraints of certain communication methods.

Tijdlijn

2014 Walbusch Walter Busch distributed an advertising leaflet, containing six 19 x 23.7 cm pages, inserted in various newspapers and magazines. The leaflet contained a purchase order in the form of a detachable mail order coupon and referenced the right of withdrawal.
Unknown 2014 The Zentrale believed the leaflet was unfair because it did not meet the formal information requirements on consumer's right of withdrawal.
Unknown 2014 The Zentrale submitted an application to the Landgericht Wuppertal for an order stopping the publication of the leaflet and for reimbursement of pre-litigation costs.
Unknown 2014 The Landgericht Wuppertal upheld the Zentrale's application, ruling against Walbusch.
Unknown 2014 Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf partly overturned the decision of the Landgericht Wuppertal.
14-06-2017 The Bundesgerichtshof decided to refer questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of Directive 2011/83.
17-07-2017 The Court of Justice of the European Union received the request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof.
20-09-2018 The Advocate General presented their opinion at the sitting.
23-01-2019 The Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment interpreting Article 8(4) and Article 6(1)(h) of Directive 2011/83.