Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)
9 July 2026 ( * )
[para_4]( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive (EU) 2019/771 – Contracts for the sale of goods – Article 13(4)(c) – Remedies for lack of conformity of the goods – Concept of a ‘lack of conformity which is of such a serious nature as to justify an immediate price reduction or termination of the sales contract’ – Lack of conformity relating to the safety of the goods – Bringing the goods into conformity inexpensively )
[para_5]In Case C‑307/25,
[para_6]REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria), made by decision of 16 April 2025, received at the Court on 29 April 2025, in the proceedings
[para_7]KFZ Kolak e.U.
[para_8]v
[para_9]GF,
[para_10]THE COURT (Seventh Chamber),
[para_11]composed of F. Schalin (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Gavalec and Z. Csehi, Judges,
[para_12]Advocate General: A. Rantos,
[para_13]Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
[para_14]having regard to the written procedure,
[para_15]after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
[para_16]– KFZ Kolak e.U., by W. Reiser, Rechtsanwalt,
[para_17]– the European Commission, by P. Kienapfel and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents,
[para_18]having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
[para_19]gives the following
Judgment
[para_21]1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 13(4)(c) of Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC (OJ 2019 L 136, p. 28).
[para_22]2 The request has been made in proceedings between KFZ Kolak e.U. and GF regarding the termination of a contract for the sale of a second-hand vehicle and the subsequent reimbursement of the price paid.
Legal context
3 Recitals 2, 52 and 53 of Directive 2019/771 state as follows:
[para_25]‘(2) … Τhis Directive aims to strike the right balance between achieving a high level of consumer protection and promoting the competitiveness of enterprises, while ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity.
[para_26]…
[para_27](52) In certain situations, it could be justified that the consumer should be entitled to have the price reduced or the contract terminated immediately. Where the seller has taken action to bring the goods into conformity but a lack of conformity becomes apparent subsequently, it should be objectively determined whether the consumer should accept further attempts by the seller to bring the goods into conformity, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, such as the type and the value of the goods, and the nature and the significance of the lack of conformity. In particular, for expensive or complex goods it could be justified to allow the seller another attempt to remedy the lack of conformity. It should also be taken into account whether the consumer can be expected to maintain confidence in the ability of the seller to bring the goods into conformity or not, for instance, due to the same problem appearing twice. Similarly, in certain situations, the lack of conformity could be of such a serious nature that the consumer cannot maintain confidence in the ability of the seller to bring the goods into conformity, such as where the lack of conformity severely affects the ability of the consumer to make normal use of the goods and the consumer cannot be expected to trust that repair or replacement by the seller would remedy the problem.
[para_28](53) In order to maintain a balance between the rights and obligations of the contracting parties, the consumer should enjoy the right to terminate the contract only in cases where the lack of conformity is not minor.’
[para_29]4 Article 1 of that directive, entitled ‘Subject matter and purpose’, is worded as follows:
[para_30]‘The purpose of this Directive is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market while providing for a high level of consumer protection, by laying down common rules on certain requirements concerning sales contracts concluded between sellers and consumers, in particular rules on the conformity of goods with the contract, remedies in the event of a lack of such conformity, the modalities for the exercise of those remedies, and on commercial guarantees.’
5 Under Article 5 of that directive, entitled ‘Conformity of goods’:
[para_32]‘The seller shall deliver goods to the consumer that meet the requirements set out in Articles 6, 7 and 8, where applicable, without prejudice to Article 9.’
6 Article 10(1) of that directive, entitled ‘Liability of the seller’, provides:
[para_34]‘The seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time when the goods were delivered and which becomes apparent within two years of that time. Without prejudice to Article 7(3), this paragraph shall also apply to goods with digital elements.’
[para_35]7 Article 13 of Directive 2019/771, entitled ‘Remedies for lack of conformity’, provides:
[para_36]‘1. In the event of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the goods brought into conformity or to receive a proportionate reduction in the price, or to terminate the contract, under the conditions set out in this Article.
[para_37]…
[para_38]4. The consumer shall be entitled to either a proportionate reduction of the price in accordance with Article 15 or the termination of the sales contract in accordance with Article 16 in any of the following cases:
[para_39](a) the seller has not completed repair or replacement or, where applicable, has not completed repair or replacement in accordance with Article 14(2) and (3), or the seller has refused to bring the goods into conformity in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article;
[para_40](b) a lack of conformity appears despite the seller having attempted to bring the goods into conformity;
[para_41](c) the lack of conformity is of such a serious nature as to justify an immediate price reduction or termination of the sales contract; or
[para_42](d) the seller has declared, or it is clear from the circumstances, that the seller will not bring the goods into conformity within a reasonable time, or without significant inconvenience for the consumer.
[para_43]5. The consumer shall not be entitled to terminate the contract if the lack of conformity is only minor. The burden of proof with regard to whether the lack of conformity is minor shall be on the seller.
[para_44]…’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
[para_46]8 On 27 March 2023, GF purchased from KFZ Kolak a second-hand vehicle that was first registered in January 2015, for a price of EUR 33 500. In the sales contract, the vehicle was described as ‘adequately fit for use, category 3’. It was also stated therein that ‘the vehicle is, in its category 3 condition, fit for operation and registration’.
[para_47]9 On 6 April 2023, the Österreichische Automobil-, Motorrad- und Touring Club (ÖAMTC) (Austrian automobile, motorcycle, and racing club) conducted an inspection of the vehicle which revealed an engine oil leak due to the engine being poorly sealed. According to the ÖAMTC, that situation constitutes a serious defect affecting operational safety and road safety, which existed before the vehicle was handed over to GF and could be rectified inexpensively.
[para_48]10 KFZ Kolak informed GF that it was willing to repair the vehicle. GF nevertheless lodged a claim with the Austrian courts for termination of the sales contract and reimbursement of the purchase price of the vehicle in exchange for its return, as well as the reimbursement of other costs he had incurred in connection with that purchase. KFZ Kolak contested that claim, arguing that GF had refused its offer of repair without reason and therefore had no right to the termination of the sales contract.
[para_49]11 The court of first instance dismissed GF’s claim on the basis of the national law transposing Directive 2019/771, on the grounds that it would be easy to bring the goods concerned into conformity and that KFZ Kolak was willing to carry out the repair of the vehicle.
[para_50]12 The court of second instance, for its part, upheld GF’s appeal. It held that, under that legislation, the consumer has a right to a price reduction or to the termination of the contract only where the lack of conformity is of such a serious nature as to justify an immediate price reduction or termination of contract. That seriousness is established if the lack of conformity severely affects the consumer’s ability to make normal use of the goods and where it has a significant negative effect on safety. It is of little importance whether the lack of conformity could be remedied easily and inexpensively.
[para_51]13 KFZ brought an appeal on a point of law ( Revision ) against the judgment of the appeal court before the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria), which is the referring court.
[para_52]14 The referring court states that, under Austrian law, in order to determine whether the lack of conformity is so serious as to justify immediate termination of the contract, reliance must be placed on the loss of confidence in the item acquired and not necessarily in the person of the transferor. According to Austrian legal literature, such a loss of confidence is constituted where the consumer cannot make normal use of the goods and where the lack of conformity has a significant negative effect on the safety of the consumer. In that regard, it is of little importance whether the goods can be brought into conformity and whether the seller acted negligently. Furthermore, according to that court, it is also apparent from the preparatory documents for the national legislation which transposed Article 13(4)(c) of Directive 2019/771 that the loss of confidence need not necessarily and primarily concern the person of the seller, since that loss may, on the contrary, be inferred form the nature of the lack of conformity at issue. Under such a view, it is irrelevant whether the goods can be brought into conformity inexpensively or whether the transferor can do so easily.
[para_53]15 The referring court notes, however, that in German law, to determine whether the lack of conformity is so serious as to justify the immediate termination of the sales contract, it is necessary to carry out an in concreto assessment, balancing the conflicting interests of the consumer and the trader. German legal literature considers that the loss of confidence could be assessed both in relation to the person of the seller and to the inconvenience that bringing the goods into conformity would subsequently entail for the consumer. That loss of trust could also directly result from the lack of conformity in question. In that context, it is relevant to determine whether it can be remedied through relatively limited intervention by the seller.
[para_54]16 In those circumstances, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
[para_55]‘(1) Must Article 13(4)(c) of Directive [2019/771] on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods be interpreted as meaning that a defect which affects the safety of the goods (in the present case, loss of oil from a motor vehicle which entails the risk of engine damage), even in the absence of other conditions, such as particularly egregious conduct on the part of the seller (deceit, for example), is of such a serious nature as to justify an immediate price reduction or cancellation of the sales contract?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
[para_57](2) Does the same apply where the defect could be remedied at relatively low financial cost?’
Consideration of the questions referred
[para_59]17 By its two questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 13(4)(c) of Directive 2019/771 must be interpreted as meaning that a lack of conformity relating to the safety of goods and which can be rectified relatively inexpensively must necessarily be classified as a lack of conformity that is so serious as to justify an immediate reduction in the sales price or the immediate termination of the sales contract.
[para_60]18 As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that it is clear, in essence, from Article 5 of Directive 2019/771 that the seller is to deliver to the consumer goods which, inter alia, must be in conformity with the sales contract.
[para_61]19 Under Article 10(1) of that directive, the seller is to be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time when the goods were delivered and which becomes apparent within two years of that time. In that regard, Article 13(1) of that directive sets out the rights which the consumer may assert against the seller in the event of a lack of conformity of the goods, namely having the goods brought into conformity, a proportionate reduction of the price, or the termination of the contract.
[para_62]20 It follows from the need for uniform application of EU law and from the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, having regard not only to its wording but also to the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question, and, where appropriate, its origins (see judgments of 18 January 1984, Ekro , 327/82, EU:C:1984:11, paragraph 11, and of 29 February 2024, Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Subsequent religious conversion) , C‑222/22, EU:C:2024:192, paragraph 25).
[para_63]21 As regards, in the first place, the wording of Article 13(4)(c) of Directive 2019/771, it should be borne in mind that that provision provides that the consumer has a right to an immediate sales price reduction or the immediate termination of the sales contract where the lack of conformity is of such a serious nature as to justify such a reduction or termination. It must be noted that, having regard to the usual meaning of the term ‘serious’, reinforced by the use of the predeterminer ‘such’, that the reference to ‘a lack of conformity [which] is of such a serious nature’ refers, in that provision, to a lack of conformity of very great significance which is distinct from non-conformities of lesser significance.
[para_64]22 As regards, in the second place, the context of Article 13(4)(c) of that directive, it should be noted that it follows from Article 13(5) of that directive, read in the light of recital 53 thereof, that the termination of the contract is limited to situations in which the lack of conformity is not minor, with the result that only a significant lack of conformity may give rise to the right of the consumer to terminate the contract.
[para_65]23 It should also be emphasised that it follows from Article 13(4) of that directive that, with the exception of the situation referred to in subparagraph (c) of that paragraph 4, a consumer is to be entitled to either a proportionate reduction in the sales price or the termination of the sales contract only where the goods cannot or could not be brought into conformity. Thus, the cases defined in Article 13(4)(a), (b) and (d) cover, in essence, situations in which, first, the seller has not, voluntarily or otherwise, carried out the repair or replacement of the goods or is unable to bring them into conformity within a reasonable period of time or without significant inconvenience to the consumer and, second, despite the intervention of the seller, a lack of conformity arises. It follows that the ‘lack of conformity [which] is of such a serious nature’ referred to in Article 13(4)(c) of Directive 2019/771 must be distinguished from the other non-conformities referred to in Article 13(4) of that directive.
[para_66]24 In addition, it is apparent from recital 52 of that directive, in the light of which Article 13(4) thereof must be read, that it is justified for a consumer to have the right immediately to a price reduction or to the termination of the contract where the lack of conformity is of such gravity that the consumer cannot maintain confidence in the seller’s ability to bring the goods into conformity. That recital adds that that may be the case where the lack of conformity severely affects the ability of the consumer to make normal use of the goods and where the consumer cannot be expected to be certain that the repair or replacement by the vendor would resolve the problem. Consequently, only a lack of conformity reaching a certain threshold of seriousness capable of altering the fitness of the goods to be used in accordance with their customary use and, consequently, the consumer’s confidence, is capable of justifying the immediate termination of the contract.
[para_67]25 As regards, in the third place, the objectives of that directive, it is true that, according to Article 1 thereof, its purpose is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market while providing for a high level of consumer protection. However, as set out, in essence, in recital 53 of that directive, it also seeks to maintain a balance between the rights and obligations of the contracting parties. Such a balance could not be achieved if any lack of conformity, regardless of its significance, affecting the safety of goods necessarily had to be classified as a lack of conformity so serious as to justify an immediate reduction in the sales price or the immediate termination of the sales contract. Such an interpretation would call into question the distinction provided for in Article 13 of Directive 2019/771 between the situations in which the consumer is entitled to have the goods brought into conformity or to receive a proportionate reduction in price or to terminate the contract and, in doing so, would undermine the balance established by that directive between the rights of the consumer and those of the seller.
[para_68]26 It follows from the foregoing that the mere fact that a lack of conformity would adversely affect the safety of the goods is not sufficient to classify such a lack of conformity as being so serious that it would immediately justify the reduction of the sales price or the termination of the sales contract, thus depriving the seller of any possibility of bringing the goods into conformity. On the contrary, in order to assess the seriousness of the lack of conformity of the goods, it is necessary to determine whether the consumer can objectively maintain confidence in the seller’s ability to bring the goods into conformity. To that end, it is necessary to take into consideration the nature of the defect, the goods concerned, the conditions under which those goods can be brought into conformity and whether or not that lack of conformity adversely affected the safety of the consumer or of a third party.
[para_69]27 Although it is for the referring court to assess, in the case in the main proceedings, whether the lack of conformity is of such a serious nature as to justify an immediate price reduction or termination of the sales contract, the Court, ruling on a reference for preliminary ruling, may nevertheless provide clarification designed to guide the referring court in its examination (see, to that effect, judgments of 4 July 2000, Haim , C‑424/97, EU:C:2000:357, paragraph 58, and of 11 January 2024, Nárokuj , C‑755/22, EU:C:2024:10, paragraph 42).
[para_70]28 It should be noted that the lack of conformity in the case in the main proceedings arises from the presence of an engine oil leak in a vehicle, which is liable to cause the engine to break down. Although such a lack of conformity may, as the case may be, adversely affect the consumer’s ability to make normal use of the goods concerned, the seriousness must be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the case.
[para_71]29 In that regard, it is not apparent from the order for reference that there are reasons that would justify the consumer being unable to maintain confidence in the seller’s ability to bring the goods into conformity. It is true that the lack of conformity at issue was already present when the consumer received the vehicle, which could affect the consumer’s confidence in the seller. However, it is necessary to take into account the facts that the item in question is a second-hand vehicle more than eight years old, that it does not appear from the order for reference that the seller engaged in deception or other misconduct, that the seller informed the buyer that it was willing to repair the vehicle and that, according to the ÖAMTC, the cost of bringing the vehicle into conformity would be relatively low.
[para_72]30 Accordingly, and subject to the verifications to be carried out by the referring court, it does not appear that the lack of conformity at issue in the case in the main proceedings is so serious as to immediately justify a sales price reduction or the termination of the sales contract.
[para_73]31 In light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 13(4)(c) of Directive 2019/771 must be interpreted as meaning that a lack of conformity relating to the safety of goods and which can be rectified relatively inexpensively does not necessarily have to be classified as a lack of conformity that is so serious as to justify an immediate reduction in the sales price or the immediate termination of the sales contract.
Costs
[para_75]32 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:
[para_77]Article 13(4)(c) of Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC,
[para_78]must be interpreted as meaning that a lack of conformity relating to the safety of goods and which can be rectified relatively inexpensively does not necessarily have to be classified as a lack of conformity that is so serious as to justify an immediate reduction in the sales price or the immediate termination of the sales contract.
[para_79][Signatures]
[para_80]* Language of the case: German.