Brussels, 05/06/2015 (Agence Europe) - Any fault detected in a product within the six months following purchase must be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. While the consumer is not required, at that stage, to provide evidence to that effect, he/she nonetheless has certain obligations, which the Court of Justice of the EU set out in a ruling on Thursday 4 June (case C-497/13).
Any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of the delivery of goods is to be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. Directive 1999/44/EC, which governs certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, also states that member states may require that, for consumers to benefit from their rights, they must inform the seller of the lack of conformity within a period of two months from the date on which they detected the lack of conformity. The question, however, is what this requirement means and what it implies for consumer and seller.
In its ruling, the Court says that the obligation imposed on the consumer is limited to that of informing the seller that a lack of conformity exists and is not to furnish evidence or state the precise cause. The consumer must, however, provide information that is useful to the seller. Even though this information will necessarily vary from product to product, the Court sets out two types of information to be provided to the seller.
Thus, the consumer must furnish evidence that the goods sold are not in conformity with the contract and prove that the lack of conformity in question became apparent, that is to say, became physically apparent, within six months of delivery of the goods.
Firstly, the consumer must allege and furnish evidence that the goods sold are not in conformity with the contract in so far as, for example, they do not have the qualities agreed on or even are not fit for the purpose which that type of goods is normally expected to have. The consumer is required to prove only that the lack of conformity exists. He/She is not required to prove the cause of that lack of conformity or to establish that its origin is attributable to the seller. Once these facts have been established, the consumer is relieved of the obligation of establishing that the lack of conformity existed at the time of delivery of the goods, as it may be assumed that it already existed 'in embryonic form' in those goods at the time of delivery. It is therefore for the professional seller to provide, as the case may be, evidence that the lack of conformity did not exist at the time of delivery of the goods, by establishing that the cause or origin of that lack of conformity is to be found in an act or omission which took place after that delivery. (Jan Kordys)