Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 2 June 2017 — AS Starman v Tarbijakaitseamet

(Case C-332/17)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AS Starman

Defendant: Tarbijakaitseamet

Questions referred

1.    Is Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU ¹ of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 to be interpreted as meaning that a trader can make available a telephone number for which a higher rate than the normal rate applies if the trader, in addition to the telephone number at a higher rate, also offers consumers, in a comprehensible and easily accessible way, a landline number at the normal rate for the purposes of contacting him in relation to a contract concluded?

2.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU preclude a situation in which a consumer who voluntarily uses a telephone number with a higher rate for contacting a trader in relation to a concluded contract, despite the provision by the trader of a telephone number at the normal rate in a comprehensible and easily accessible manner, is obliged to pay the higher rate for contacting the trader?

3.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the limitation in Article 21 of Directive 2011/83 oblige the trader, together with the speed dial number, everywhere also to present a landline number at the normal rate and information on the differences in price?

____________

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).