The ECJ has ruled that the right of withdrawal also applies in the case of the purchase of a mattress and even if its protective film has been removed after delivery.
As with a garment, it can be assumed that the operator is able to make the mattress marketable again by means of cleaning or disinfection without satisfiing the requirements of health protection or hygiene.
Moreover, it is not apparent that such a mattress, even if it may have already been used, cannot be reused definitively by a third party or re-marketed for that reason alone. A mattress also serves successive hotel guests and there is also one for used mattresses.
The Federal Court of Justice, which originally brought the case, asks the Court of Justice to interpret the Directive. However, the latter pointed out that the right of withdrawal was intended to protect the consumer in the particular situation of a distance selling in which he had no possibility of protecting the goods before
to see the conclusion of the contract. It is therefore intended to compensate for the disadvantage suffered by a consumer in a distance contract by giving him an appropriate period of consideration in which he has the opportunity to examine and try out the goods purchased, in so far as this is the case. necessary to determine their nature, characteristics and functioning.
However, the ECJ also stressed that, in accordance with the Directive, the consumer is liable for any loss of value of a product which is due to handling which is not necessary for the verification of the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, without therefore being withdrawal.
The judgment should be applied to all other similar goods that could be cleaned (such as clothing, etc.). With the mere sealing, one cannot thus “deprive” a consumer of his right of withdrawal. Such an attempt, via GTC or other regulations, should now be clearly to be admonished.
