Regarding the notification of the seller about the consumer’s intention to withdraw from the contract, the Court stated:
Since the provisions of the GEO 34/2014 have a mandatory nature (acc. to art. 25(2)), the Court in first instance should have verified whether the exercise of the withdrawal right was made according to the provisions of art. 11(1) of the GEO; any contractual clauses modifying or restraining the consumer’s rights are not binding for the consumer.
Even though the consumer did not send a formal notification of withdrawal, the electronic correspondence between the consumer and the seller within the withdrawal period clearly establishes the consumer’s intent to that effect. The problems resolved regarding the carrier (who was not specifically authorised by the consumer to accept that the seller verifies the returned product upon reception), do not create any doubts about the consumer’s intention to return the product in exchange for the money paid. Also, according to art. 6(1)(h) of the GEO, the seller has the obligation to inform the consumer about the time limit and procedure for the withdrawal and to send them the model withdrawal form; it is not possible to simply refer to its website, in order to prove that it accomplished this duty.
Regarding the effects of the withdrawal, the Court stated that :
According to articles 12 and 13(1) of the GEO, once the consumer exercised their right of withdrawal, the parties obligations are terminated and the seller must reimburse the money received and the costs for the shipment (which they did not) no later than 14 days from the moment when the seller has been notified about the consumer’s intent to withdraw. The refusal of the seller to take back the returned product and the different pretexts invoked in order to deny the consumer’s right of withdrawal denote bad faith and such conducts may also be sanctioned by administrative fines.
Text integral: Text integral