Case C‑247/16

Heike Schottelius

v

Falk Seifert

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 1999/44/EC — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Notion of ‘contract of sale’ — Inapplicability of that directive — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 7 September 2017

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Jurisdiction of the Court—Limits—Request for an interpretation of provisions of EU law that are manifestly inapplicable in the main proceedings—Inapplicability of Directive 1999/44 to a contract for work

   (Art. 267 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/44)

2. Consumer protection—Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees—Directive 1999/44—Scope—Contract of sale—Notion

   (European Parliament and Council Directive, Articles 1(1) and (4) and 2(5))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 23-25, 44, 46)

2.  Although the text of Directive 1999/44 does not define ‘contract of sale’, it is also the case that it does not contain any reference to national laws as regards the meaning to be applied to that term. It therefore follows that it must be regarded, for the purposes of application of the directive, as designating an autonomous concept of EU law which must be interpreted in a uniform manner throughout the European Union (see, by analogy, judgment of 18 October 2011, Brüstle, C‑34/10, EU:C:2011:669, paragraph 26).

   Indeed, it is apparent from the provisions of Directive 1999/44 as well as from the context of the directive that the notion of ‘sale’ covers only certain contracts that are capable of falling within other classifications under national legal systems, namely contracts for work or services.

   Thus, first, under Article 1(4) of that directive, ‘contracts for the supply of consumer goods to be manufactured or produced shall also be deemed contracts of sale.’ Consequently, a contract whose subject is the sale of an asset that must first be manufactured or produced by the seller does fall within the scope of the directive.

   Second, Article 2(5) of Directive 1999/44 deems a lack of conformity resulting from incorrect installation of the consumer goods to be equivalent to lack of conformity of the goods if, among other things, installation forms part of the contract of sale of those goods. Thus, the service for the installation of goods, when associated with the sale, does fall within the scope of that directive.

   It follows from the findings above that, first, Directive 1999/44 applies not only to contracts of sale sensu stricto, but also to certain categories of contract involving a supply of services, which, in accordance with applicable national law, are capable of falling within the classification of contracts for services or work, namely contracts for the supply of consumer goods to be manufactured or produced and contracts providing for the installation of such goods linked to the sale.

   Second, in order for those categories of contract involving a supply of services to be classified as ‘contracts of sale’ within the meaning of that directive, the supply of services must be ancillary to the sale.

   (see paras 32, 34-38)