European e-Justice Portal - Case Law
Close

BETA VERSION OF THE PORTAL IS NOW AVAILABLE!

Visit the BETA version of the European e-Justice Portal and give us feedback of your experience!

 
 

Navigation path


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID Decision no. 534/2016
Member State Romania
Common Name link
Decision type Other
Decision date 17/05/2016
Court Timis Tribunal
Subject
Plaintiff Unknown
Defendant Unknown
Keywords consumer rights, right of withdrawal

Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 3, Article 9, 1.

The consumer has to prove that a contract was concluded off-premises. The wording of the agreement is irrelevant.
The plaintiff and the defendant concluded an agency agreement. The plaintiff asked for the termination of such agreement, considering that the provisions of Directive 2011/83/EEC (implemented into Romanian law by the provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 34/2014 on consumer rights ) are applicable and thus, he may exercise the right of withdrawal.
The receipt submitted by the plaintiff reveals that the payment was made at the headquarters of the defendant in Timisoara, also indicated by the plaintiff in the application. Therefore, it is a contract entered into in commercial premises. In this context, it is irrelevant that the wording of the agreement between the parties refers to the defendant's headquarters in Bucharest, especially since the plaintiff does not have any evidence to prove that the contract was concluded at a distance or off-premises.
The court held that the contract is not a distance or an off-premises one and, therefore, the normative act mentioned by the plaintiff is not applicable.
Is the consumer obliged to prove that a contract was concluded off-premises ?
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available

The plaintiff's revision request is rejected.