Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 30 August 2019 — EU v PE Digital GmbH
(Case C-641/19)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Amtsgericht Hamburg
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: EU
Defendant: PE Digital GmbH
Questions referred
Is Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011, 1 with regard to recital 50 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘amount [to be paid by the consumer] which is in proportion to what has been provided until the time the consumer has informed the trader of the exercise of the right of withdrawal, in comparison with the full coverage of the contract’ is to be calculated on a purely pro rata temporis basis in the case of a contract according to the content of which an overall service made up of several sub-services, rather than a single service, is to be provided, if the consumer pays for the overall service on a pro rata temporis basis, but the sub-services are provided within different intervals?
Is Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83 to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘amount [to be paid by the consumer] which is in proportion to what has been provided until the time the consumer has informed the trader of the exercise of the right of withdrawal, in comparison with the full coverage of the contract’ is to be calculated on a purely pro rata temporis basis even if a (sub-)service is continuously provided, but has a higher or lower value for the consumer at the beginning of the contract term?
Are Article 2.11 of Directive 2011/83 and Article 2.1 of Directive (EU) 2019/770 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 2 to be interpreted as meaning that files which are supplied as a sub-service within the scope of an overall service principally provided as a ‘digital service’ within the meaning of Article 2.2 of Directive 2019/770 may also constitute ‘digital content’ within the meaning of Article 2.11 of Directive 2011/83 and Article 2.1 of Directive 2019/770, with the result that the trader could terminate the right of withdrawal under Article 16(m) of Directive 2011/83 with regard to the sub-service, but the consumer, if the trader fails to do so, could withdraw from the contract as a whole and would not have to pay compensation for that sub-service by reason of Article 14(4)(b)(ii) of Directive 2011/83?
Is Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83, with regard to recital 50 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the total price contractually agreed for a service within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83 is ‘excessive’ if it is significantly higher than the total price agreed with another consumer for a service that is identical in terms of content provided by the same trader for the same contract term and, furthermore, under the same framework conditions?
____________
1 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).
2 Directive (EU) 2019/770 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services (OJ 2019 L 136, p. 1).