DEFECTIVE GOODS

The Court has also had occasion to clarify the rights of consumers where they claim that a product delivered to them is defective.

In 2015, the Court held that any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of the delivery of goods is to be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. Thus, although the consumer must prove that a lack of conformity exists and that it became apparent within six months, he is not required to prove the cause of that lack of conformity or to establish that its origin is attributable to the seller ( judgment of 4 June 2015, FroukjeFaber, C-497/13).

If defective goods are replaced, the consumer is not required to pay compensation to the seller for the use of the defective goods ( judgment of 17 April 2008, Quelle, C-404/06). In addition, the seller must remove the defective goods and install the replacement goods, or bear the necessary cost of those operations ( judgment of 16 June 2011, Gebr. Weber and Putz, C-65/09 and C-87/09).

Lastly, where there is a lack of scientific consensus, the proof of a defect in      a vaccine and of a causal link between that defect and a disease may be made out by serious, specific and consistent evidence, such as the temporal proximity between the administering of a vaccine and the occurrence of a disease, the lack of any personal or family history of the disease on the part of the person vaccinated and the existence of a significant number of reported cases ( judgment of 21 June 2017, WandOthers, C-621/15).