Portalul european e-Justiție

Detalii privind cazul
- ID național: Iasi County Court, Section II for Civil, Administrative and Fiscal matters, Judgement 210/2020
- Statul membru: România
- Denumire comună:N/A
- Tipul de decizie: Decizie a Curții care face obiectul unui recurs
- Data deciziei: 20/05/2020
- Instanţa: Tribunalul Iași, Secția II Civilă-Contencios Administrativ și Fiscal
- Obiect:
- Reclamantul:
- Pârâtul:
- Cuvinte-cheie: Consumers rights, Distance contract, Right of withdrawal, e-mail, Replacement, reimbursement, Sanction, administrative authority

Extinde tot|Restrânge tot

Articole din directivă

Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 3, Article 13 Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 3, Article 14 Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 5, Article 23 Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 5, Article 24
Notă preliminară

A trader cannot escape the application of administrative sanction for the violation of the obligations deriving from the exercise of the consumer’s right of withdrawal when, because of its own conduct, he did not receive the returned goods in due time but was clearly informed by the consumer that he had sent back the goods.
Fapte

Following a complaint made by a consumer, the local authorities founded that the trader violated the legal provisions regarding its obligations regarding the exercise of the consumer’s withdrawal right; the trader was given an administrative sanction, but he obtained an annulment in court, the authorities launched an appeal on points of law against the judgement.
Chestiune juridică

Can a contravention report sanctioning the trader for the violation of the consumer’s right to withdraw from a distance contract be held as valid even if the trader did not receive the returned goods? If so, under which conditions?
Hotărârea

Since the consumer proved that he took steps to return the goods ordered, through two different carriers, and insistently contacted the trader through e-mails in the 14-day period legally stipulated to that effect, in order to either obtain a replacement of the products or the reimbursement of the money paid, his will to withdraw from the contract (in case of non-replacement) is evident.

Since the trader violated its legal obligations regarding the exercise of withdrawal right and limited himself to sustain that he did not receive the returned package or any request (of withdrawal) by e-mail, aspects contradicted by the existing written evidence in the file, the constitutive elements of the contravention stipulated at art. 28 of the GEO 34/2014 are met. The trader cannot avoid its legal obligations derived from the exercise of the withdrawal right (nor the corresponding administrative sanction) simply because a delay occurred in the return of the goods by the consumer (delay in fact caused partially by the trader himself as he forbids carriers to enter its premises).

Consequently, the judgement of the First Instance Court, who annulled the contravention report and the administrative sanction, is not legal.

Text integral: Text integral
Cazuri conexe

Nu există rezultate disponibile
Doctrină

Nu există rezultate disponibile
Rezultat

Founding that the First Instance Court wrongfully interpreted the legal provisions concerning the obligations of a trader deriving from the exercise of the consumer’s right of withdrawal in a distance contract, the Court of Appeal admitted the appeal and reversed the judgement. The administrative act sanctioning the trader was thus maintained. The judgement is final.

Jurisprudenţă

Text integral