Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)
24 September 2026 ( * )
[para_4]( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 2011/83/EU – Consumer agreement – Right of withdrawal for off-premises contracts – Article 2(8) – Definition of an off-premises contract – Written offer from the trader – Acceptance of that offer by the consumer in the presence of the trader and away from the business premises of the trader )
[para_5]In Case C‑381/25,
[para_6]REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Landgericht Cottbus (Regional Court, Cottbus, Germany), made by decision of 10 July 2024, received at the Court on 10 June 2025, in the proceedings
[para_7]PL,
GQ
[para_9]v
[para_10]Gexx aeroSol GmbH,
[para_11]THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),
[para_12]composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. Passer, E. Regan, D. Gratsias and B. Smulders, Judges,
[para_13]Advocate General: M. Szpunar,
[para_14]Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
[para_15]having regard to the written procedure,
[para_16]after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
[para_17]– the European Commission, by P. Kienapfel and I. Rubene, 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 2(8) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64), as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 (OJ 2019 L 328, p. 7) (‘Directive 2011/83’).
[para_22]2 The request has been made in proceedings between PL and GQ, consumers, and Gexx aeroSol GmbH, a company incorporated under German law, concerning the reimbursement of a payment on account made under a contract for the supply and installation of a photovoltaic system.
Legal context
European Union law
3 Recitals 21 and 37 of Directive 2011/83 state:
[para_26]‘(21) An off-premises contract should be defined as a contract concluded with the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader, for example at the consumer’s home or workplace. In an off-premises context, the consumer may be under potential psychological pressure or may be confronted with an element of surprise, irrespective of whether or not the consumer has solicited the trader’s visit. The definition of an off-premises contract should also include situations where the consumer is personally and individually addressed in an off-premises context but the contract is concluded immediately afterwards on the business premises of the trader or through a means of distance communication. … Purchases made during an excursion organised by the trader during which the products acquired are promoted and offered for sale should be considered as off-premises contracts.
[para_27]…
[para_28](37) … Concerning off-premises contracts, the consumer should have the right of withdrawal because of the potential surprise element and/or psychological pressure. Withdrawal from the contract should terminate the obligation of the contracting parties to perform the contract.’
4 According to Article 2 of that directive, entitled ‘Definitions’:
[para_30]‘For the purpose of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:
[para_31]…
(8) “off-premises contract” means any contract between the trader and the consumer:
[para_33](a) concluded in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader;
[para_34](b) for which an offer was made by the consumer in the same circumstances as referred to in point (a);
[para_35](c) concluded on the business premises of the trader or through any means of distance communication immediately after the consumer was personally and individually addressed in a place which is not the business premises of the trader in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer; or
[para_36](d) concluded during an excursion organised by the trader with the aim or effect of promoting and selling goods or services to the consumer;
[para_37]…’
[para_38]5 Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/83, that article being entitled ‘Information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts’, provides:
[para_39]‘Before the consumer is bound by a distance or off-premises contract, or any corresponding offer, the trader shall provide the consumer with the following information in a clear and comprehensible manner:
[para_40]…
[para_41](h) where a right of withdrawal exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with Article 11(1), as well as the model withdrawal form set out in Annex I(B);
[para_42]…’
[para_43]6 Article 9 of Directive 2011/83, entitled ‘Right of withdrawal’, is worded as follows:
[para_44]‘1. Save where the exceptions provided for in Article 16 apply, the consumer shall have a period of 14 days to withdraw from a distance or off-premises contract, without giving any reason, and without incurring any costs other than those provided for in Article 13(2) and Article 14.
[para_45]…
[para_46]2. Without prejudice to Article 10, the withdrawal period referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall expire after 14 days or, in cases where Member States have adopted rules in accordance with paragraph 1a of this Article, 30 days from:
(a) in the case of service contracts, the day of the conclusion of the contract;
[para_48](b) in the case of sales contracts, the day on which the consumer or a third party other than the carrier and indicated by the consumer acquires physical possession of the goods or:
[para_49]…’
[para_50]7 Article 10(1) of that directive, that article being entitled ‘Omission of information on the right of withdrawal’, provides:
[para_51]‘If the trader has not provided the consumer with the information on the right of withdrawal as required by point (h) of Article 6(1), the withdrawal period shall expire 12 months from the end of the initial withdrawal period, as determined in accordance with Article 9(2).’
German law
[para_53]8 Directive 2011/83 was transposed into German law by the Gesetz zur Umsetzung der Verbraucherrechterichtlinie und zur Änderung des Gesetzes zur Regelung der Wohnungsvermittlung (Law on the transposition of the Consumer Rights Directive and amending the Law regulating estate agencies) of 20 September 2013 (BGBl. I 2013, p. 3642).
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
[para_55]9 Gexx aeroSol is a company which offers services for the planning, installation and maintenance of integrated solar-centered energy systems.
[para_56]10 On 8 April 2022, PL and GQ, consumers, received an offer from Gexx aeroSol for the supply and installation of a photovoltaic system including battery storage and accessories.
[para_57]11 On 31 May 2022, that offer was signed by PL and GQ at their home, in the presence of a Gexx aeroSol representative (‘the contract at issue’).
[para_58]12 On 8 November 2022, Gexx aeroSol issued an invoice for a payment on account in the amount of EUR 6 479.31, which was paid by PL and GQ.
[para_59]13 Gexx aeroSol supplied the photovoltaic system, but the battery storage was not installed. That partial performance was accepted by PL and GQ on 7 February 2023.
[para_60]14 By document of 9 June 2023, received by Gexx aeroSol on the same day, PL and GQ’s representative notified the company of their withdrawal from the contract at issue and requested reimbursement of the payment made.
[para_61]15 Hearing an action brought by PL and GQ against Gexx aeroSol concerning the reimbursement of that payment on account, the Landgericht Cottbus (Regional Court, Cottbus, Germany), which is the referring court, finds that that company failed to provide those consumers with information on the right of withdrawal under Article 6(1)(h) of Directive 2011/83. Consequently, if PL and GQ are found to have such a right of withdrawal, the period for exercising that right started to run at the earliest on 31 May 2022 and expired at the earliest on 14 June 2023, in accordance with Article 10(1) of that directive.
[para_62]16 In those circumstances, it would follow that PL and GQ’s withdrawal on 9 June 2023 took place within the time limits laid down by that directive.
[para_63]17 The referring court nevertheless has doubts as to whether the contract at issue may be regarded as an ‘off-premises contract’ within the meaning of Article 2(8) of Directive 2011/83 and, consequently, whether it falls within the regime laid down by that directive.
[para_64]18 More specifically, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether, in a situation where a consumer is presented with an offer made by a trader and it is only the acceptance of that offer that takes place away from ‘business premises’, within the meaning of Article 2(9) of that directive, the contract thus concluded could be classified as an ‘off-premises contract’ within the meaning of Article 2(8) of that directive.
[para_65]19 In that regard, the referring court notes that the German courts differ in their interpretation of the national legislation transposing the provisions of Directive 2011/83. According to the case-law of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany), the consumer does not have a right of withdrawal in a case such as that referred to in paragraph 18 of the present judgment.
[para_66]20 That said, the referring court tends to consider that the conclusion of the contract, for the purposes of Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83, coincides with the time when the ‘final contractual statement’ is made; here, the consumer’s acceptance of the trader’s offer. Therefore, if that acceptance, which is binding on the consumer, is made in the physical presence of the trader and away from the business premises of the trader, the consumer would have a right of withdrawal under that directive.
[para_67]21 According to that court, that interpretation is supported both by the general scheme and by the purpose of that directive. First, in the light of Article 2(8)(b) of Directive 2011/83, classification as an ‘off-premises contract’ would also depend on the circumstances surrounding the consumer’s legally binding declaration of intent, even if the contract were to be concluded only at a later stage. Second, the consumer could be under pressure from the trader, owing to the latter’s physical presence alongside the consumer at the time the consumer accepts the trader’s offer, even if the offer was already available to the consumer and the consumer had the opportunity to examine it.
[para_68]22 In those circumstances, the Landgericht Cottbus (Regional Court, Cottbus) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
[para_69]‘(1) Is Directive [2011/83] to be interpreted as meaning that an off-premises contract, within the meaning of Article 2([8])(a) of [that directive], requires that both the offer and the acceptance of the contract be concluded in the simultaneous physical presence of the contracting parties?
[para_70](2) If the first question is answered in the negative: Is Directive [2011/83] to be interpreted as meaning that an off-premises contract, within the meaning of Article 2([8])(a) of [that directive], does not exist if the trader, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive [2011/83], sends the consumer, within the meaning of Article 2([1]) of Directive [2011/83], in advance an offer to conclude a contract which the consumer accepts off-premises in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader?
[para_71](3) Does the answer to the second question depend on whether consultations or negotiations took place or whether there was a certain period of time for reflection?’
Consideration of the questions referred
[para_73]23 By its three questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case where the consumer accepts, in the physical presence of the trader and in a place which is not the business premises of the trader, the offer sent to him or her in advance by that trader, the contract thus concluded constitutes an ‘off-premises contract’ within the meaning of that provision.
[para_74]24 As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that that provision defines an ‘off-premises contract’ as any contract between the trader and the consumer concluded in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader.
[para_75]25 The fact remains that the concept of ‘conclusion’ of the contract is not defined by Directive 2011/83. Since Article 2(8)(a) of that directive makes no reference to national laws as regards the meaning to be given to that concept, that concept, according to settled case-law, must be regarded as an autonomous concept of EU law, the interpretation of which must be established uniformly throughout the European Union (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 January 1984, Ekro , 327/82, EU:C:1984:11, paragraph 11, and of 3 September 2014, Deckmyn et Vrijheidsfonds , C‑201/13, EU:C:2014:2132, paragraph 15).
[para_76]26 In accordance with settled case-law, in order to establish such an interpretation, it is necessary to consider not only the wording of the provision of EU law in question, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 9 January 2025, Commune de Schaerbeek and Commune de Linkebeek , C‑627/23, EU:C:2025:9, paragraph 28).
[para_77]27 As regards, first of all, the wording of Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83, it should be noted that that provision, in order for there to be an ‘off-premises contract’ within the meaning of that directive, requires only that the contract in question must be ‘concluded’ in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader. As is apparent from the usual meaning of the term ‘conclusion’ of the contract, the contract cannot, in principle, be regarded as having been concluded until the offer is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed.
[para_78]28 By contrast, it cannot be inferred from the wording of Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83 that, in order to apply, that provision requires that the offer to enter into a contract must also have been made in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader.
[para_79]29 As regards, next, the context in which Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83 occurs, it is important to bear in mind that Article 2(8)(b) and (c) of that directive makes provision for two other scenarios in which a contract may be classified as an ‘off-premises contract’.
[para_80]30 Indeed, it follows from the fact that, as regards those two other scenarios, the legislature took care to specify the conditions which, in the circumstances referred to, the consumer’s offer or solicitation must satisfy in order for the resulting contract to be classified as an ‘off-premises contract’ within the meaning of that directive, that the application of Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83, conversely, does not depend on the conditions under which the offer or any solicitation occurred.
[para_81]31 In addition, Article 2(7) of that directive lays down a condition for a contract to be deemed to be a ‘distance contract’, namely the exclusive use by the parties of one or more means of distance communication, ‘up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded’. Article 2(8)(a) of that directive, concerning ‘off-premises’ contracts, does not lay down a similar condition in respect of all stages of the conclusion of the contract.
[para_82]32 Lastly, as regards the purpose of the provisions of Directive 2011/83 relating to those ‘off-premises contracts’, it should be borne in mind that it is stated in recital 21 of Directive 2011/83 in particular that, when he or she is away from the business premises of the trader, the consumer may be under potential psychological pressure or may be confronted with an element of surprise, irrespective of whether the consumer solicited the trader’s visit.
[para_83]33 That purpose is reiterated by recital 37 of that directive, which states that the consumer should have a right of withdrawal from the contract concluded with the trader away from business premises, because of the potential surprise element or psychological pressure (see, to that effect, judgments of 17 May 2023, DC (Withdrawal after performance of the contract) , C‑97/22, EU:C:2023:413, paragraph 26, and of 21 December 2023, BMW Bank and Others , C‑38/21, C‑47/21 and C‑232/21, EU:C:2023:1014, paragraph 178).
[para_84]34 It can be inferred from that objective that where, as in the case in the main proceedings, the trader’s offer was already available to the consumer and the consumer had the opportunity to consult it before the contract was concluded, the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, at the time of the final conclusion of the contract, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader is sufficient for that contract to fall within the scope of Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83. It is true that the fact that the offer on the basis of which the trader intends to conclude the contract was available in advance to the consumer can eliminate the element of surprise with which that consumer might then be confronted. However, since that offer is accepted by the consumer away from the business premises of the trader, in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer at the latter’s home, the fact remains that that consumer risks being put under psychological pressure.
[para_85]35 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case where the consumer accepts, in the physical presence of the trader and in a place which is not the business premises of the trader, the offer sent to him or her in advance by that trader, the contract thus concluded constitutes an ‘off-premises contract’ within the meaning of that provision.
Costs
[para_87]36 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 (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:
[para_89]Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019,
[para_90]must be interpreted as meaning that in a case where the consumer accepts, in the physical presence of the trader and in a place which is not the business premises of the trader, the offer sent to him or her in advance by that trader, the contract thus concluded constitutes an ‘off-premises contract’ within the meaning of that provision.
[para_91][Signatures]
[para_92]* Language of the case: German.