Off-premises contracts and the right of withdrawal under EU consumer law: the Court's ruling in case C-381/25

Introduction

On 24 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) delivered its judgment in Case C-381/25, PL and GQ v Gexx aeroSol GmbH. The case arose from a reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Landgericht Cottbus (Regional Court, Cottbus, Germany) by decision of 10 July 2024, received at the Court on 10 June 2025.

The central question before the Court concerned 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, as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of 27 November 2019 (together referred to in the judgment as 'Directive 2011/83'). Specifically, the referring court sought guidance on whether a contract qualifies as an 'off-premises contract' — and therefore triggers the consumer's right of withdrawal — when a trader issues a written offer and the consumer accepts that offer in the physical presence of the trader but away from the trader's business premises.

The underlying dispute involved two consumers, identified as PL and GQ, and Gexx aeroSol GmbH, a company incorporated under German law. The proceedings concerned the reimbursement of a payment on account made under a contract for the supply and installation of a photovoltaic system. This article examines the legal framework, the factual background, and the interpretive issues addressed by the Court, drawing exclusively on the text of the judgment as published.

Legal framework: Directive 2011/83/EU and the concept of off-premises contracts

Directive 2011/83/EU establishes a harmonised framework for consumer rights across the European Union, including specific protections applicable to contracts concluded away from a trader's business premises. The directive was adopted on 25 October 2011 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64). It was subsequently amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of 27 November 2019 (OJ 2019 L 328, p. 7).

Article 2(8) of Directive 2011/83 provides the operative definition of an 'off-premises contract'. Recital 21 of the directive elaborates on the rationale behind this definition, stating that 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. The recital further notes that 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.

Recital 37 of the directive is also identified in the judgment as part of the relevant legal context. These recitals are significant because they illuminate the protective purpose underlying the off-premises contract regime and inform the Court's interpretive approach to the definition set out in Article 2(8).

The right of withdrawal associated with off-premises contracts is one of the directive's most consequential consumer protections. It allows consumers to disengage from contracts concluded in circumstances where they may not have had the opportunity to compare offers or reflect on their decision in a neutral environment. The scope of the definition in Article 2(8) is therefore of considerable practical importance for both consumers and traders operating across the European Union.

The factual background and the question referred

The proceedings before the Landgericht Cottbus concerned a contract between the consumers PL and GQ and Gexx aeroSol GmbH for the supply and installation of a photovoltaic system. A payment on account had been made under that contract, and the consumers sought its reimbursement, apparently on the basis that they had validly exercised a right of withdrawal.

The factual scenario that gave rise to the preliminary reference involved a specific contractual formation mechanism: the trader issued a written offer, and the consumer accepted that offer in the physical presence of the trader, but at a location away from the trader's business premises. The referring court sought to establish whether this sequence of events — a written offer from the trader followed by consumer acceptance in the trader's presence but off the trader's premises — falls within the definition of an off-premises contract under Article 2(8) of Directive 2011/83.

This question is not merely technical. It determines whether the consumers in the main proceedings were entitled to exercise a right of withdrawal and, consequently, whether they could recover the payment on account made to Gexx aeroSol GmbH. The Court's answer has broader implications for the classification of contracts formed through written offers accepted in off-premises settings throughout the European Union.

The European Commission submitted observations in the proceedings, represented by agents P. Kienapfel and I. Rubene. The Court, after hearing the Advocate General, decided to proceed to judgment without a formal Opinion.

The Court's interpretive approach

The Fifth Chamber of the Court of Justice, composed of President M.L. Arastey Sahún (acting as Rapporteur), and Judges J. Passer, E. Regan, D. Gratsias, and B. Smulders, was tasked with interpreting Article 2(8) of Directive 2011/83 in light of the specific factual scenario described by the referring court.

The judgment addresses the definition of an off-premises contract as it applies to a situation where the contractual process is divided between a written offer emanating from the trader and an acceptance by the consumer that occurs in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader, at a location that is not the trader's business premises. The Court's analysis engages with the text of Article 2(8) and the contextual guidance provided by recitals 21 and 37 of the directive.

Recital 21 is particularly instructive in this regard. It identifies the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer at a location other than the trader's business premises as the defining characteristic of an off-premises contract. It also underscores the protective rationale: the consumer may face psychological pressure or an element of surprise in such circumstances. The Court's interpretation of Article 2(8) is informed by this protective purpose, which is central to the directive's overall scheme.

The judgment thus clarifies the conditions under which the off-premises contract definition is engaged when the offer and acceptance stages of contract formation do not occur in the same manner or at the same time, but where the consumer's acceptance nonetheless takes place away from the trader's business premises and in the trader's presence.

Significance for consumer protection in the European Union

The ruling in Case C-381/25 contributes to the body of EU case law interpreting Directive 2011/83/EU, a directive that plays a central role in the harmonisation of consumer rights across Member States. The specific issue addressed — whether a contract formed through a trader's written offer accepted by the consumer off-premises and in the trader's presence qualifies as an off-premises contract — has practical relevance for a wide range of commercial sectors, including the installation of energy systems such as the photovoltaic system at issue in the main proceedings.

The judgment reinforces the importance of the location and circumstances of contract conclusion as determinative factors under Article 2(8). By focusing on the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer away from the trader's business premises, the Court's analysis aligns with the protective logic articulated in recital 21 of the directive. The consumer's potential exposure to psychological pressure or surprise in such settings justifies the application of the right of withdrawal, regardless of the precise mechanism by which the contract was formed.

For traders operating in sectors where contracts are frequently concluded at consumers' homes or other off-premises locations — whether through verbal negotiations, written offers, or other means — the judgment serves as a reminder of the obligations that attach to off-premises contracts under Directive 2011/83. Compliance with the directive's information and withdrawal requirements in such contexts is not optional; it is a matter of EU law.

For consumers, the ruling affirms that the protective scope of the off-premises contract regime is not easily circumvented by the use of written offers or other formal mechanisms that might otherwise suggest a more deliberate or considered contractual process. The key question remains whether the acceptance occurred in the trader's presence and away from the trader's business premises.

Procedural context and the preliminary ruling mechanism

The case reached the Court of Justice through the preliminary ruling procedure established by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This mechanism allows national courts to refer questions of EU law to the Court of Justice when the interpretation of EU law is necessary to resolve a dispute before them. The Landgericht Cottbus exercised this power by submitting its reference on 10 July 2024, with the request received at the Court on 10 June 2025.

The preliminary ruling procedure is a cornerstone of the EU legal order. It ensures the uniform interpretation and application of EU law across all Member States, preventing divergent national interpretations that could undermine the harmonisation objectives of directives such as Directive 2011/83. The judgment in Case C-381/25 is binding on the referring court and provides authoritative guidance for all national courts and tribunals within the European Union when faced with analogous questions.

The Court's decision to proceed to judgment without a formal Opinion from Advocate General M. Szpunar, after hearing the Advocate General, reflects the procedural flexibility available to the Court under its Rules of Procedure. This approach does not diminish the authority of the judgment; it remains a binding interpretation of EU law delivered by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of Justice.

The judgment is published in the digital reports of cases and carries official status, as noted in the document. Its ECLI identifier is ECLI:EU:C:2026:793, and it is accessible through the EUR-Lex database under CELEX number 62025CJ0381.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-381/25, PL and GQ v Gexx aeroSol GmbH, delivered on 24 September 2026, addresses a specific but practically significant question concerning the definition of an off-premises contract under Article 2(8) of Directive 2011/83/EU. The case arose from a dispute over the reimbursement of a payment on account made under a contract for the supply and installation of a photovoltaic system, and was referred to the Court by the Landgericht Cottbus in Germany.

The Court's interpretation of Article 2(8), informed by the protective rationale set out in recitals 21 and 37 of the directive, clarifies the conditions under which a contract formed through a trader's written offer and accepted by the consumer in the trader's presence away from the trader's business premises qualifies as an off-premises contract. This classification is consequential because it determines whether the consumer's right of withdrawal under Directive 2011/83 is engaged.

The ruling is relevant to traders and consumers across the European Union, particularly in sectors where contracts are concluded at locations other than the trader's business premises. It underscores the broad protective scope of the off-premises contract regime and the importance of compliance with the directive's requirements in such contexts. National courts and tribunals should have regard to this judgment when interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of Directive 2011/83 in domestic proceedings.

This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Sources consulted

• Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2026. — PL and GQ v Gexx aeroSol GmbH. — 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. — Case C-381/25. - Court of Justice of the European Union, European Union