Sudska praksa

  • Detalji predmeta
    • Nacionalna osobna isprava: High administrative court, Usž 2425/2021-2
    • Država članica: Hrvatska
    • Uobičajeni naziv:N/A
    • Vrsta odluke: Upravna odluka u žalbenom postupku
    • Datum odluke: 09/09/2021
    • Sud: High administrative court
    • Predmet:
    • Tužitelj:
    • Tuženik:
    • Ključne riječi: B2C, burden of proof, consumer rights, presumption of conformity, sales contract
  • Članci Direktive
    Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 5 Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 5, 3.
  • Uvodna napomena

    Consequences of non-payment of expertise costs on the existence of lack of conformity of goods.

  • Činjenice

    The plaintiff bought the boiler and reported the lack of conformity to an authorised service technician. An authorised service technician determined that the boiler was in a good condition and that the problem with the boiler was due to an inadequate chimney. The plaintiff then sent a written complaint to the seller, claiming that the boiler had the lack of conformity, and she also sent a complaint to the state inspector. The complaint was sent six months after the sale of the boiler. Acting on the plaintiff's report, the state inspector reminded the plaintiff that the boiler needs to be examined by an expert and that she, as a consumer, advances the cost of the expertise, and that ultimately the cost is borne by her as a consumer or trader depending on the expert's findings and opinion. The plaintiff refused to advance the cost, which is why the proceedings before the inspectorate were suspended. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Administrative Court and demanded compensation.

  • Pravno pitanje

    Who is obliged to advance payment of the costs of expertise if the buyer makes a complaint after the period of 6 months of the sale since he is no longer protected by the presumption? Can compensation for damage caused by lack of conformity be claimed in proceedings before administrative courts?

  • Odluka

    The second-instance court finds that the first-instance court correctly accepted the defendant's conclusion that the plaintiff (buyer) was obliged to pay the costs of the expertise. However, since the plaintiff refused to advance the costs of the expert examination and did not present other evidence, in the opinion of this Court, the defendant acted correctly when he rejected the plaintiff's appeal.

    Regarding the issue of damages, he confirms that the first-instance court correctly pointed out to the plaintiff that the defendant is not competent to conduct proceedings regarding damage to the chimney and building and pointed out that she can try to claim damages by initiating court proceedings before the competent court.

    Cjeloviti tekst: Cjeloviti tekst

  • Povezani predmeti

    Nema dostupnih rezultata

  • Pravna literatura

    Nema dostupnih rezultata

  • Rezultat

    The judgement is an example of the proper conclusions of the court and can serve as a model for other courts.