Europos e. teisingumo portalas

Bylos aprašymas
- Nacionalinis numeris: Supreme Court, Judgement 3K-3-186-1075/2020
- Valstybė narė: Lietuva
- Bendrinis pavadinimas:N/A
- Sprendimo rūšis: Aukščiausiojo Teismo sprendimas
- Sprendimo data: 10/06/2020
- Teismas: Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas
- Tema:
- Ieškovas:
- Atsakovas:
- Raktažodžiai: sales contract, refund, repair

Viską išskleisti|Viską suskleisti

Direktyvos straipsniai

Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3
Įžanginė pastaba

1. Provisions ensuring the protection of consumer rights in Lithuania, contrary to Directive 1999/44/EC, do not establish a hierarchy of remedies for the consumer’s violated rights.

2. The fact that the functions of a smart TV (which are not related to the broadcasting of traditional television channels) do not work are not to be regarded as insignificant within the meaning of Article 6.363 (8) of the Civil Code.
Faktai

A consumer bought a TV from a shop called “Elektro Markt” owned by UAB “GV Group” (entrepreneur). 6 months later, the TV started to malfunction. At the request of the consumer, the shop tried to fix it numerous times, but the problem would reoccur after some time. Finally, almost 2 years later, the consumer decided to return the TV to the seller and requested a refund. The seller refused to issue a refund, so the consumer applied to the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority with a complaint, which was declared unfounded and was rejected. The consumer decided to file a lawsuit against the entrepreneur. The First Instance Court upheld the action in full. The Appellate Court changed the decision of the First Instance Court, rewarding the consumer with only half of the refund.
Teisės klausimas

1. Do the provisions ensuring the protection of consumer rights in Lithuania establish a hierarchy of remedies for the consumer’s violated rights?

2. Is the fact that the functions of a smart TV, which are not related to the broadcasting of traditional television channels, do not work to be regarded as insignificant within the meaning of Article 6.363 (8) of the Civil Code?
Sprendimas

1. Pursuant to Article 3 (2) and (3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, where a product does not conform to the contract, the two methods of proving that the product is of poor quality, repair or replacement, are applied in parallel, unless this is impossible or disproportionate. And only if the conformity of the goods with the contract cannot be ensured in the above ways can the consumer, under the conditions laid down in Article 3 (5) of Directive 1999/44/EC, demand a corresponding reduction in price or termination of the contract. Article 3 (6) provides that the consumer is not entitled to terminate the contract if the lack of conformity is minor.

The Chamber of Judges, taking into account the fact that Directive 1999/44/EC is an act harmonising the minimum standards of consumer protection, the fact that in Lithuania from June 13, 2014, stricter provisions ensuring the protection of violated consumer rights entered into force, which do not restrict the choice of remedies for the buyer's (consumer's) violated rights and do not establish their hierarchy, concludes that the provisions of Directive 1999/44/EC are not relevant for assessing compliance with EU law.

2. The non-traditional functions of the smart TV, which are assigned to it by the producer and made public by the producer, are parallel functions, which means that they are essential to the functioning of the smart TV, which means that the purchaser (consumer) has a legitimate expectation that they will perform in parallel. Thus, the malfunctioning of these functions cannot be considered insignificant. The panel concludes that the plaintiff (consumer) did not, in principle, obtain what he sought by concluding the sales contract: to have a smart TV with properly functioning YouTube and other web apps, as well as live web browsing features and to use it as intended. Taking into account these legitimate expectations of the plaintiff and the circumstances related to the elimination of the mentioned deficiencies, the panel of judges finds that the deficiencies found in the case did not meet the insignificance criterion, therefore there are no grounds for applying the clause established in Article 6.363 (8) of the Civil Code.

URL: https://eteismai.lt/byla/63268302185588/3K-3-186-1075/2020

Visas tekstas: Visas tekstas
Susijusios bylos

Rezultatų nėra
Teisinė literatūra

Rezultatų nėra
Rezultatas

The Court annulled the decision of the Appellate Court and upheld the decision of the First Instance Court.

Teismų praktika

Visas tekstas