The European Court has on a template out of a German court made a decision that now haunts many blogs, newsletters, and essays. Somewhat simplified, the Court of Justice (Judgement of 03.09.2009, Case C-489/07) a template of a German court on the question of whether it is compatible with a European directive, and enforce the consumer the cancellation of a distance business in returning the goods for compensation to be decided. The European Court has answered the question with the half-full and half empty water glass. So far, only the half-empty water glass to read the disaster for the online retailer, which result from this decision is. The "shock of the transit trade," which propagated after the decision in part is likely, however, be rather mild. Taking the "half-full glass of water" of the decision, then the decision is to be understood as that compensation can be made still vorgeltend when the consumer gets a wide distance contract and returning the goods. Compensation not only lapses when this out of proportion to the purchase price is or if the compensation for the use or test or the real property is up to the date of withdrawal. This means that a mere, the standard compensation is not for the possession of the goods by the revocation may be invoked. The latter is just my opinion, nothing new. Who returns a packaged product, in which he did not use, also according to previous legal no compensation payable for the use.
It should but give a point of contention. Paid by the consumer for the proper utilization and effective use of acquisition until the date of cancellation, no compensation for the use? About This can be after the decision of the ECJ in fact take no final assessment. The Court said that compensation (among others) according to the principles of unjust enrichment is worth serious consideration. In my view, this applies to the case that the consumer goods not only takes into use as intended, but also uses, and then revoke his contract. In any case, this would apply if the consumer goods even after the withdrawal used to prove the mail order but must. Pending clarification of the mail order company should go, however, in its cancellation on "safe". I think it should be included in a revocation in each case that the intended putting into use of not to pay compensation out. As to whether the intended use after putting out on compensation, judicial or legislative decisions will have to wait.
it is hoped, however, that the legislature has other priorities.
For most mail order companies, the decision should therefore also a practice to change anything, because very few have called for the withdrawal of a small amount from the fourth spare consumers. I am certainly not one known case, calculated in the case of a withdrawal properly exercised within two weeks or a month of mail-order companies such compensation or would have argued. For sales on the progress and, if Amazon or similar sales platforms such compensation was intended for the putting out of the question anyway.
