In cases where a consumer exercises his right to withdraw from a contract without stating a reason pursuant to Section 53(7) of the Civil Code (Act No. 40/1964 Coll., as amended), the question arose in practice whether, in addition to the purchase price, the costs of delivery of the goods should also be refunded to the consumer. The argument that the consumer does not have this right was supported in particular by the fact that the delivery of goods represents a separate agreement - the provision of a service which has been consumed by the consumer at the time of withdrawal from the contract. This very question was addressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the judgment Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV, to which the June legal newsletter will be devoted.

Specifically, the case concerned the interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (hereinafter “the Directive”). Article 6(1) of the Directive states: “For any distance contract the consumer shall have a period of at least seven working days in which to withdraw from the contract without penalty and without giving any reason. The only charge that may be made to the consumer because of the exercise of his right of withdrawal is the direct cost of returning the goods.” Article 6(2) of the Directive then provides as follows: “Where the consumer exercises his right of withdrawal pursuant to this Article, the supplier shall be obliged to reimburse the sums paid by the consumer free of charge. The only charge that may be made to the consumer because of the exercise of his right of withdrawal is the direct cost of returning the goods.” These provisions of the Directive are implemented in Czech law in Section 53(10) of the Civil Code, which provides that “if the consumer exercises the right to withdraw from the contract…, the supplier shall only be entitled to reimbursement of the direct costs actually incurred in connection with the return of the goods…”

In the above-mentioned judgment, the Court of Justice of the EU concluded that the consumer has the right, upon withdrawal from the contract, to reimbursement of the costs of delivery of the goods (i.e. delivery of the goods to the consumer). Specifically, the Court held that “Article 6(1), first subparagraph, second sentence, and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the supplier to require the consumer, in a distance contract, to pay the costs of delivering the goods where that consumer exercises his right of withdrawal from the contract.”

The reasoning for that judgment was also based on recital 14 of the preamble to the Directive, which states that “whereas the consumer is not able actually to see the product… before concluding the contract; whereas, unless otherwise specified in this Directive, provision should be made for a right of withdrawal; whereas, if this right is not to be purely formal, the costs, if any, incurred by the consumer when exercising the right of withdrawal must be limited to the direct cost of returning the goods…”

As we have mentioned in previous legal newsletters, the operative part of a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU contains a binding interpretation of Community legislation. This effectively means that the interpretation of Czech legislation implementing the assessed European Community legislation should also be identical. In this case, therefore, it concerns the interpretation of Section 53(10) of the Civil Code, which should thus be interpreted to mean that the consumer has, upon withdrawal from the contract without stating a reason pursuant to Section 53(7) of the Civil Code, the right to reimbursement of costs paid for the delivery of goods.

This text was originally prepared by the law firm Mašek, Kočí, Aujezdský in cooperation with the civic association Association for Electronic Commerce (APEK) as legal newsletter No. 6/2011 intended for members of that association.

This text was translated from Czech to English using an AI translator.