Over the past few days, one case has kept coming up in professional conversations which we have not covered so far - namely, Eisenberger Gerüstbau v JK (C-564/24), decided on 5 March, a new case concerning possible abuse of withdrawal rights.
Facts and questions
The scaffolding had been subsequently installed and held in place over a period of almost 12 months, during which the consumer had regularly paid a number of bills by the trader. In December 2021, when all the works for which the scaffolding had been indispensable had been concluded, the consumer indicated her wish to withdraw from the contract and demanded that all the money she had paid – close to 100 000 euros – be returned to her. The ground for her claim was that the trader had not informed her of her rights to withdraw from the contract, which would then be automatically extended from 14 days to 12 months and 14 days. The trader rejected the request and sued the consumer for the unpaid parts of the bill; the consumer counter-sued.
The questions before the CJEU concerned two different aspects on which the referring court doubted on the way in which EU consumer law may apply to the case: first (questions1-3), whether the contract at hand (and modifications thereto) should be considered a distance contract for the purposes of article 2(7), Consumer Rights Directive, a necessary precondition for the application of the right to withdraw. Second (question 4), in case the contract had to be considered a distance contract under the relevant rules, whether in the case at hand the trader could legitimately claim that the consumer had exercised their right of withdrawal in a way that is contrary to good faith.
The second issue was particularly laden (see para 37) as a result of a previous CJEU decision which had given pause to many practitioners, namely C-97/22. In that case, the court had upheld the right to withdrawal (and restitution of any expenses) for a consumer who had exercised their right after the contract had been fully performed. Could a different conclusion be reached in this case?
Reasoning and answers
As concerns the first question, the Court considered the three main elements that constitute the definition of “distance contract” under article 2(7) CRD, namely:” “any contract concluded between the trader and the consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded”. One of these aspects – the exclusive use of distance means of communication - seemed to be uncontroversial. Two, however, deserved closer scrutiny. First: was the customer acting as a consumer? The referring court seems to consider that if the consumer uses the services of a professional intermediary, they may not necessarily be considered a consumer in the relationship to third party providers hired through such intermediaries. The Court’s answer to this is relatively succinct, in so far as it concludes, relying on the AG’s opinion, that “a consumer was assisted by a trader, in the present case an architect, in the context of the negotiation and conclusion of a contract between that consumer and another trader, is not such as to call into question the weaker position […] of that consumer vis-à-vis that other trader, even though the trader who assisted that consumer took the initiative to establish the contact between that consumer and the other trader and influenced the content of that contract”. This may be a dubious reasoning as no effort is made to show why the use of a professional intermediary should not affect the presumption that a consumer “must be deemed to be less informed, economically weaker and legally less experienced” [para 44] than their counterparty.
Perhaps unexpectedly, the CJEU has more doubts as to whether the contract in question should be considered as concluded “under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme”. From the description of the negotiation, it is clear that the contract was concluded exclusively by means of distance communication, but not that the trader themselves had set out any “organised” scheme for such distance negotiations. In that sense, the CJEU concluded that it is up to the national court to decide whether the contract was a distance contract under article 2(7) of the CRD.
The answers to the previous questions made it still meaningful to answer the question concerning whether the consumer could be considered to be exercising their right of withdrawal against good faith. In this sense, the Court reaches to its own case-law on the notion of “abuse of right”, which is known to be very demanding and as such helps the CJEU distinguish this case from the one decided in C-97/22. The Court first observes that it has in the past held that “the application of eU legislation cannot be extended to cover transactions carried out for the purpose of fraudulently oer wrongfully obtaining advantages provided for by EU law”. This is the case when it can be shown that first, “despite formal observance of the conditions laid out by the EU rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved”, and, additionally, “a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from those rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down” for obtaining that advantage. The Court refers here to its own Grand Chamber judgment of 21 December 2023, BMW Bank and Others (C-38/21, C-47/21 and C-232/21, paragraph 285), which concerned potentially abusive exercise of the “eternal” right of withdrawal in consumer credit agreements.
The threshold imposed by these requirements is, in essence, high enough that it could overcome not only the general demands of a high level of consumer protection but also the punitive elements inherent in the specific rules at hand, which extend the right of withdrawal by 12 months when consumers have not been informed of this specific right.
In this sense, the Court reasons, it is not enough to observe that a consumer has exercised their right of withdrawal towards the end of the extended withdrawal period. However, additional facts specific to this case may be relevant; in particular, the referring court may consider the fact that the contract was “concluded on the basis of a draft prepared under the sole responsibility of the consumer by an agent of her choice, in accordance with the information given by the latter as regards the precise services expected from the trader, which that trader then signed without making any amendments”[para 78]. This could suggest that the objective element of the abuse test – formal observance of the rules undermining the objective of those same rules – may be met.
The circumstances of the case, the CJEU concludes, may further suggest that the subjective element of the test has also been met – the timing of the invocation of the RoW, right between the conclusion of the necessary parts of the work and the expiry of the 12-month window to exercise her right of withdrawal constituting a potentially relevant factor.
The second question/answer discussed above is the main reason why the judgment has drawn some attention within legal circles. While similar implications could be drawn from the 2023 car lease cases, those cases were so steeped in a specific discussion and litigation saga that it was not immediately clear how broadly the CJEU may be willing to generalise the applicability of the abuse doctrine in consumer law. This case, of course, doesn’t answer this question either, being ultimately still about withdrawal rights. It does, however, help us make some tentative distinctions. First, abuse of withdrawal rights is more than the somewhat disproportionate exercise of said rights. It requires an ex ante dimension of creating a situation which gives rise to potential legal consequences, and at least explicit awareness of this dimension. This means, second, that the “windfall” a consumer enjoys when profiting from a trader’s mistake is not equivalent to abuse. This makes sense, in particular, in light of the Court’s consistent position that such consequences are both meant to provide consumers effective remedies and sanction the traders for non-compliance, thereby incentivising compliance.
The previous question may get less attention, but I do want to reflect on two aspects that I find notable: first, I mentioned above that the reasoning with which the Court denies that the presence of an intermediary may mean the customer may not quality as consumer under (in particular) the CRD does not sound particularly convincing. If we go with the Court’s own recalling that consumers must be assumed to be weaker in terms of knowledge, financial means and and legal savvy, it seems that – contrary to what the Court claims – the presence of a professional intermediary would by definition intervene to mitigate some of these asymmetries. An intermediary will likely be hired precisely to provide additional knowledge and (contract-specific) legal experience, and their involvement may even mean that the consumer has sufficient investment in the contract that they may be financially almost comparable to an entrepreneur. At the same time, while the reasoning may be weak (pun not too intended), it seems wise of the Court not to open up to broader questions about when the presence of an intermediary may matter to someone’s consumer capacity. This seems like a question that, if at all, should be properly addressed by legislatively set exceptions. The case-by-case appreciation of the role of the intermediary finds a more limited, and hence arguable more appropriate, role in the assessment of the potential abuse. Second, I find it interesting that the Court proposes a rather strict interpretation of the “organised scheme” element in the definition of a distance contract, suggesting that situations in which the trader does not systematically work online/through means of distance communication may not be automatically drawn under the application of the more demanding CRD requirements for distance contract by the mere conclusion of the contract by means of distance communication.
