Sodna praksa

  • Podatki o zadevi
    • Nacionalna ID: Ljubljana High Court, Judgement II Cp 1697/2018
    • Država članica: Slovenija
    • Splošno ime:N/A
    • Vrsta odločbe: Sodna odločba v pritožbenem postopku
    • Datum odločbe: 03/04/2019
    • Sodišče: Višje sodišče v Ljubljani
    • Zadeva:
    • Tožnik:
    • Toženec:
    • Ključne besede: contract law, guarantee, consumer rights, goods
  • Členi direktive
    Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2 Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2
  • Uvodna opomba


    The Court of First Instance correctly applied the substantive law of the Consumer Protection Act and rules regarding the issuance of a compulsory guarantee. The appellate objections in this direction are unfounded. In this regard, the appellate allegation that the obligation to issue a mandatory guarantee is at least one year, under article 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, is unfounded. Since it is obvious that more than one year has passed from the installation of the heat pump to the notification of the fault in 2015, provisions of the Consumer Protection Act do not apply. The period for issuing the compulsory guarantee is  at least one year, and this does not preclude a longer period agreed by the litigants in the contract.

    Applies and explains what is meant under article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU by goods and if the substantive law of Consumer Protection Act was applied correctly.

  • Dejstva

    The litigants entered into a service contract for the complete supply and installation of the heat pump. They also concluded an annex to this service contract. In point 5 of the contract, they agreed that the guarantee period for the work performed is five years from the handover, the materials are subject to guarantee periods as provided by the manufacturer or supplier, but not less than two years from the handover. With the annex, they extended the guarantee for installed materials to five years after the handover. Under the service contract, the defendant undertook to rectify any hidden defects which might occur within five years of the handover, within eight days of the date on which the plaintiff informed him of the defects. The defendant delivered and installed a heat pump in the plaintiff’s apartment building, which included an interior and an exterior in 2012. The plaintiff found (in May 2015) that water was flowing from the interior part of the pump. It was disputed in the proceedings at first instance whether the heat pump had ceased to function properly due to a water leak during the period of the guarantee period and whether the plaintiff had validly withdrawn from the contract. By its contested order and judgement, the Court of First Instance upheld the applicant's reasoning.

  • Pravna zadeva

    1.     What is meant by goods under Article 2 of Directive 2011/83?

    2.     Has  the substantive law of the Consumer Protection Act been applied correctly?

  • Odločba

    The Court of Appeal emphasises that neither the provisions of the Consumers Protection Act nor the Obligation Code provide for written notification of a clerical error, but notification in an appropriate manner (Article 464 Obligation Code). The national court's obligation to refer a question to the CJEU arises when the court is asked about the interpretation of European Union law, which was not the case before the Court of Appeal in the present case. It follows from Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU, that goods mean any tangible movable items, except for objects sold in the context of enforcement and other judicial measures. Directive 1999/44/EC stipulates that consumer goods are movable tangible items, except for goods sold by way of execution or otherwise by authority of law, water, gas, and electricity. The directives therefore do not exclude devices such as heat pumps. The Court of First Instance rightly stated that there did not appear to be a convincing reason that  a heat pump is not an appliance that the consumer himself plugs into an electrical installation but a complex system requiring professional installation. There does not appear to be a compelling reason to exclude the compulsory guarantee for devices with a higher degree of technical complexity. As stated, the two EU Directives to which the defendant refers have been implemented into Slovenian law and have been indirectly correctly applied by the Court of  First Instance within the framework of the Consumer Protection Act. Even if they were to be used directly, the Court of Appeal found that the heat pump was covered by both Directives. Because of the above, the Court of Appeal did not find any grounds for suspension of the proceedings and refer the questions as proposed by the defendant, to the CJEU.


    Celotno besedilo: Celotno besedilo

  • Povezane zadeve

    Zadetki niso na voljo

  • Pravna literatura

    Zadetki niso na voljo

  • Zadetek

    The Court of Appeal only upheld  the plaintiff's appeal as regards the operative part of the first instance judgement, which refers to the change that the defendant must reimburse the plaintiff the full amount paid under the contract  (i.e., EUR 8,191.75 with interest). The defendant's appeal was unfounded. Namely, the defendant also proposed, among other things, the submission of a preliminary question to the CJEU regarding the correct application of art. 21b of the Consumer Protection Act. The Court of Appeal found that the defendant's proposal was unfounded, as both Directive 2011/83/EU and Directive 1999/44/EC were directly implemented in Slovenian legislation providing for consumer protection, so the Directives were also indirectly applied in this case. The Appellate Court also confirmed that the Court of  First Instance had correctly interpreted the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.