Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62021CA0625

    Case C-625/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — VB v GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Unjustified withdrawal from a contract by the consumer — Term determining the trader’s right to compensation declared unfair — Application of supplementary national law)

    OJ C 35, 30.1.2023, p. 17–17 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    30.1.2023   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 35/17


    Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — VB v GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio GmbH

    (Case C-625/21) (1)

    (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Unjustified withdrawal from a contract by the consumer - Term determining the trader’s right to compensation declared unfair - Application of supplementary national law)

    (2023/C 35/18)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Oberster Gerichtshof

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: VB

    Defendant: GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio GmbH

    Operative part of the judgment

    Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

    must be interpreted as meaning that, where an indemnification clause of a sales contract has been declared unfair and, consequently, void and that contract is capable of continuing in existence without that clause, the seller or supplier which has imposed that term is precluded from being able to claim, in an action for damages based exclusively on a supplementary provision of national contract law, compensation for the loss or harm caused as provided for in that provision, which would have been applicable in the absence of that clause.


    (1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.


    Top