CJEU, 4th chamber, May 13, 2026, No C-488/24

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of 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), as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 (OJ 2019 L 328, p. 7) (‘Directive 2011/83’).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between D.V., a consumer, and Kigas MB, a carriage company, concerning the payment of an invoice relating to an international carriage of goods service by road, which included a sum for customs duties paid by Kigas.

 Legal context

 International law

3 The Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed in Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed in Geneva on 5 July 1978 (‘the CMR’), was negotiated within the framework of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. More than 50 States, including all the Member States of the European Union, have acceded to the CMR.

4 Article 1 of the CMR states:

‘1. This Convention shall apply to every contract for the carriage of goods by road in vehicles for reward, when the place of taking over of the goods and the place designated for delivery, as specified in the contract, are situated in two different countries, of which at least one is a Contracting country, irrespective of the place of residence and the nationality of the parties.

…

4. This Convention shall not apply:

…

(c) To furniture removal.

…’

5 Article 4 of the CMR provides:

‘The contract of carriage shall be confirmed by the making out of a consignment note. The absence, irregularity or loss of the consignment note shall not affect the existence or validity of the contract of carriage which shall remain subject to the provisions of this Convention.’

6 Article 6(1) of the CMR provides:

‘The consignment note shall contain the following particulars:

(i) Charges relating to the carriage (carriage charges, supplementary charges, customs duties and other charges incurred from the making of the contract to the time of delivery);

…’

7 Article 11(1) and (2) of the CMR provides:

‘1. For the purposes of the Customs or other formalities which have to be completed before delivery of the goods, the sender shall attach the necessary documents to the consignment note or place them at the disposal of the carrier and shall furnish him with all the information which he requires.

2. The carrier shall not be under any duty to inquire into either the accuracy or the adequacy of such documents and information. The sender is to be liable to the carrier for any damage caused by the absence, inadequacy or irregularity of such documents and information, except in the case of some wrongful act or neglect on the part of the carrier.’

 European Union law

8 Recitals 4, 5 and 7 of Directive 2011/83 state:

‘(4) … The harmonisation of certain aspects of consumer distance and off-premises contracts is necessary for the promotion of a real consumer internal market striking the right balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises …

(5) … the full harmonisation of consumer information and the right of withdrawal in distance and off-premises contracts will contribute to a high level of consumer protection and a better functioning of the business-to-consumer internal market.

…

(7) Full harmonisation of some key regulatory aspects should considerably increase legal certainty for both consumers and traders. Both consumers and traders should be able to rely on a single regulatory framework based on clearly defined legal concepts regulating certain aspects of business-to-consumer contracts across the Union. The effect of such harmonisation should be to eliminate the barriers stemming from the fragmentation of the rules and to complete the internal market in this area. Those barriers can only be eliminated by establishing uniform rules at Union level. Furthermore consumers should enjoy a high common level of protection across the Union.’

9 Article 1 of that directive, entitled ‘Subject matter’, provides:

‘The purpose of this Directive is, through the achievement of a high level of consumer protection, to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by approximating certain aspects of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning contracts concluded between consumers and traders.’

10 Article 2 of that directive contains the following definitions:

‘(1) “consumer” means any natural person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession;

(2) “trader” means any natural person or any legal person, irrespective of whether privately or publicly owned, who is acting, including through any other person acting in his name or on his behalf, for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession in relation to contracts covered by this Directive;

…

(6) “service contract” means any contract other than a sales contract under which the trader supplies or undertakes to supply a service, including a digital service, to the consumer;

…

(7) “distance contract” means any contract concluded between the trader and the consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;

…’

11 Article 3 of the same directive, headed ‘Scope’, states, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘This Directive shall apply, under the conditions and to the extent set out in its provisions, to any contract concluded between a trader and a consumer …’

12 Article 5 of Directive 2011/83, which is headed ‘Information requirements for contracts other than distance or off-premises contracts’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘Before the consumer is bound by a contract other than a distance or an off-premises contract, or any corresponding offer, the trader shall provide the consumer with the following information in a clear and comprehensible manner, if that information is not already apparent from the context:

(a) the main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate to the medium and to the goods or services;

…

(c) the total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the goods or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be calculated, as well as, where applicable, all additional freight, delivery or postal charges or, where those charges cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the fact that such additional charges may be payable;

…’

 Lithuanian law

13 Article 6.2286 of the Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio kodekso patvirtinimo, įsigaliojimo ir įgyvendinimo įstatymas Nr. VIII-1864 (Law No VIII-1864 on the approval, entry into force and implementation of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania) of 18 July 2000 (Žin., 2000, No 74-2262) in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, entitled ‘General requirements for consumers’ right to information’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘Before concluding a consumer contract other than a distance or off-premises contract, the trader must provide the consumer with the necessary, correct, complete and non-misleading information in a clear and comprehensible manner. The information must be provided to the consumer in the official language. The trader must, when marking the goods or otherwise, provide the consumer with the following information, unless it is obvious from the context:

(1) the main characteristics of the goods or services (taking into account the means of information used and the goods or service concerned);

…

(3) the total price of goods or services inclusive of taxes or where, due to the nature of the goods or services, the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the method by which that price is calculated and, where appropriate, any additional transport, delivery and postal charges, or where such additional charges cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the information that they may have to be paid;

…’

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

14 D.V., a consumer, concluded by telephone with Kigas, a carriage company, a contract for the carriage of goods belonging to him, namely two motorcycles, a quadricycle, two washing machines and two clothes-dryers, from Norway to Lithuania for the price of EUR 450. The parties to the main proceedings therefore did not conclude a written contract of carriage and did not draw up a consignment note.

15 On 16 June 2020, D.V. handed over his goods to Kigas in Norway and stated, in response to a question from that company on that point, that, since the goods to be carried were intended for his personal use, it was not necessary to provide a customs declaration.

16 On 17 June 2020, during a check at the border between Norway and Sweden, the Swedish customs authorities concluded that those goods had to be declared to customs when they entered the territory of the European Union. Therefore, a customs declaration was drawn up, setting the amount of customs duties at SEK 40 899 (approximately EUR 3 890.59), which was paid by Kigas.

17 On 18 June 2020, Kigas sent an invoice to D.V. including both the amount of EUR 450 initially agreed for the carriage of goods service and the sum corresponding to the customs duties imposed by the Swedish customs authorities.

18 On 20 June 2020, Kigas delivered, at the place agreed in Lithuania, all the goods entrusted to it by D.V. with the exception of a motorcycle which it retained, pending payment of the invoice.

19 D.V. brought an action against Kigas before the Kauno apylinkės teismas (District Court, Kaunas, Lithuania) requesting, in essence, that that court, first, acknowledge that he was under no duty to pay the sum stated in that invoice in respect of the repayment of customs duties. Second, D.V. requested that court to order Kigas to return to him without delay the motorcycle which it was holding.

20 Kigas brought a counterclaim seeking to have D.V. be ordered to pay it EUR 450 for the carriage of the goods and EUR 3 876.76 in respect of costs.

21 By judgment of 17 May 2023, the Kaunos apylinkės teismas (District Court, Kaunas) upheld that counterclaim, while also ordering Kigas to return to D.V. the motorcycle which it had not delivered.

22 By order of 16 November 2023, the Kauno apygardos teismas (Regional Court, Kaunas, Lithuania), ruling on appeal, upheld that decision.

23 Those two courts held, in essence, first, that the case in the main proceedings fell not only within the scope of the provisions of Law No VIII-1864 on the approval, entry into force and implementation of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, governing contracts of carriage, but also within those of the CMR, and that those CMR provisions were to prevail in the event of a conflict.

24 Second, those courts held that D.V., as the sender of the goods, had failed to fulfil his obligation to provide the carrier with the documents and complete information necessary to complete the customs formalities, which justified him being ordered to repay Kigas the sum relating to the customs duties which Kigas had paid. The view of those courts was that those customs duties could not be regarded as forming part of the remuneration for the carriage of those goods.

25 In that context, D.V. brought an appeal against the decision of the Kauno apygardos teismas (Regional Court, Kaunas) before the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania), which is the referring court.

26 D.V. submits that, in the context of the contract concluded with Kigas, the obligation on the trader under Article 5 of Directive 2011/83 to provide the consumer with information includes the obligation to provide the consumer with detailed information on customs duties, the rates of such duties and the documents necessary to complete the customs procedures. The obligation on the sender, laid down in Article 11 of the CMR, to provide the carrier with the documents and information necessary for the completion of customs and other formalities applies solely where the consumer has received beforehand the detailed information which must be provided to him in accordance with that Article 5.

27 Kigas maintains that, under Article 5 of Directive 2011/83, a trader providing a carriage of goods service for the benefit of a consumer is under no duty to provide him with information relating to customs procedures, customs duties and documents necessary for the completion of customs formalities. According to Kigas, under Article 11 of the CMR, the consumer must, in his capacity as sender, provide that information to the trader.

28 The referring court notes, first, that the dispute in the main proceedings concerns international carriage by road of goods intended for the personal use of the sender. Therefore, the contractual relationships at issue concern a consumer and a trader and fall within the scope of Directive 2011/83.

29 Second, the referring court notes that the carriage service at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of the CMR, since it was stated that that service does not constitute furniture removal within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the CMR. In that regard, the referring court recalls that, under Article 11(1) of the CMR, for the purposes of the customs or other formalities which have to be completed before delivery of the goods, the sender shall attach the necessary documents to the consignment note or place them at the disposal of the carrier and shall furnish the carrier with all the information which it requires. Article 11(2) of the CMR provides that the carrier is not under any duty to inquire into either the accuracy or the adequacy of those documents and information and that the sender is liable to the carrier for any damage caused by the absence, inadequacy or irregularity of those documents and information, except in the case of some wrongful act or neglect on the part of the carrier.

30 In those circumstances, the referring court asks, in the first place, whether Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2011/83, which lays down an obligation on the part of the trader to provide the consumer with information on the main characteristics of the service, must be interpreted strictly, as referring solely to information relating to the place of delivery of the goods, the route and the price, or broadly, as requiring the trader providing an international carriage of goods service for the benefit of a consumer to inform the consumer also of the customs procedures applicable to the carriage. In that second situation, that court seeks to ascertain whether it is sufficient for the trader to inform the sender-consumer that he must take charge of the documents necessary for completing the customs procedures and pay the customs duties, or whether the trader must provide detailed information concerning the precise documents which must be presented to the customs authorities together with the rates and amounts of customs duties. The referring court is inclined towards the view that to impose such a burden on the trader risks being disproportionate.

31 Indeed, it is the sender who, in principle, has the best knowledge of the properties and characteristics of the goods entrusted to the carrier and the purpose of the carriage. According to the referring court, even if the obligation on the trader to inform the consumer of the main characteristics of the service includes the fact that the goods to be carried may be subject to customs procedures, that information ought to be only general in nature. The trader cannot be required to inform the consumer of the precise documents to be presented to customs or to calculate and communicate to the consumer the precise amount of the customs duties applicable.

32 In the second place, the referring court queries whether the obligation, laid down in Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83 – to provide the consumer with information on the price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the goods or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be calculated, as well as, where applicable, all additional freight, delivery or postal charges or, where those charges cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the fact that such charges may be payable – entails an obligation on the trader providing the international carriage of goods service for the benefit of the consumer to inform the consumer of the customs duties, rates and amounts applicable to that carriage.

33 That court also takes the view that that provision may be interpreted either strictly, the outcome being that the trader is thereby exempted from providing the consumer with information on the rates and amounts of customs duties, or interpreted broadly, the outcome being that the trader is thereby obliged to provide that information.

34 In those circumstances, the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Must Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2011/83, which requires the trader to provide the consumer with information on the characteristics of the services, be interpreted as meaning that the trader that provides an international carriage service to the consumer is under an obligation to inform the consumer of the customs procedures applicable to the carriage? If Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the trader to inform the consumer of the customs procedures applicable to international carriage, is it sufficient for the trader to state that the sender (the consumer) must take charge of the documents necessary for the customs procedures and pay the customs duties, or must the trader provide detailed information (a list) on the specific documents to be presented to the customs authorities and the applicable rates (amounts) of the customs duties?

(2) Does the obligation on the trader, laid down in Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83, to provide the consumer with information on the price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the goods or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be calculated, as well as, where applicable, all additional freight, delivery or postage charges or, where those charges cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the fact that such charges may be payable, entail an obligation on the trader that provides the international carriage service to inform the consumer of the customs duties (the rates and amounts of the duties) applicable to the specific carriage?’

 Procedure before the Court

35  In that regard, it should be borne in mind that under the division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the national courts, the Court must take into account the factual and legal context of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling as set out in the order for reference. Therefore, since the referring court has defined the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking, it is not for the Court to verify the accuracy of those questions (judgment of 19 March 2026, Almirall, C‑589/24, EU:C:2026:217, paragraphs 25 and the case-law cited).

36 In that regard, in response to a request for information from the Court seeking to clarify whether the contract of carriage at issue in the main proceedings, which was concluded by telephone, must be regarded as a contract other than a distance or off-premises contract, with the result that the information to be provided to consumers by the trader should be provided in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2011/83 or whether, on the contrary, that contract must be regarded as a distance contract within the meaning of paragraph 7 of Article 2 of that directive, the referring court, as the court hearing the appeal in cassation, has confirmed that it is bound by the findings of fact made by the first instance courts and by the appeal courts, such that it does not itself assess the facts and rules exclusively on questions of law. It stated that, on the basis of the facts thereby established, the contract at issue in the main proceedings cannot be regarded as a distance or off-premises contract as provided for in point 7 of Article 2 of that directive and that the information to be provided by the trader to the consumer was therefore governed by Article 5 of that directive.

37 In the light of those factors, in order to answer the two questions put by the referring court, it is appropriate to interpret Article 5 of Directive 2011/83.

 Consideration of the questions referred

38 By its two questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court is, in essence, asking whether Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a contract for the international carriage of goods by road from a third country to a destination in a Member State of the European Union, the obligation on the trader to provide information under that provision entails informing the sender-consumer that importing the goods into the territory of the European Union may require customs formalities to be completed and that customs duties may be payable. If the answer is in the affirmative, the referring court asks whether the trader must provide detailed information on the documents to be presented to customs and on the rates and amounts of customs duties applicable.

39 As a preliminary point, first, it should be noted that the dispute between D.V. and Kigas falls, according to the referring court, within the scope of the CMR.

40 Article 1 of the CMR provides that that convention applies to every contract for the carriage of goods by road in vehicles for reward, when the place of taking over of the goods and the place designated for delivery, as specified in the contract, are situated in two different countries, of which at least one is a contracting country.

41 In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the dispute in the main proceedings concerns a contract for the carriage of goods by road for reward, from Norway to Lithuania, both of which are contracting countries to the CMR, and that that service does not constitute furniture removal carriage as provided for in Article 1(4) of the CMR.

42 Second, as laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 2011/83, any contract concluded between a trader and a consumer falls within the scope of that directive. It is apparent from the findings of the referring court, recalled in paragraph 28 of the present judgment, that D.V., who concluded the carriage contract at issue in the main proceedings with Kigas, a trader in the transport field, had the status of consumer, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive, since he acted for purposes which were outside his trade, business, craft or profession. Therefore, that contract falls within the scope of Directive 2011/83.

43 In that regard, as is clear from Article 1 of Directive 2011/83, read in the light of recitals 4, 5 and 7, that directive aims to provide a high level of consumer protection by ensuring that consumers are informed and secure in transactions with traders. In addition, consumer protection is enshrined in EU policies by Article 169 TFEU and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (judgment of 23 January 2019, Walbusch Walter Busch, C‑430/17, EU:C:2019:47, paragraph 34).

44 Therefore, the purpose of Directive 2011/83 is to afford consumers extensive protection by conferring on them a number of rights. In that regard, the information provided, before a contract is concluded, on the terms of the contract and the consequences of concluding it, is of fundamental importance for a consumer. It is on the basis of that information that the consumer decides whether he or she wishes to be contractually bound to the trader (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 January 2019, Walbusch Walter Busch, C‑430/17, EU:C:2019:47, paragraphs 35 and 36).

45 Accordingly, Article 5(1) of Directive 2011/83 provides that before the consumer is bound by a contract other than a distance or off-premises contract, or any corresponding offer, the trader is to provide that consumer with various information in a clear and comprehensible manner, to the extent that that information is not already apparent from the context. That provision seeks to ensure the communication to consumers, before the conclusion of a contract, both of information concerning the contractual terms and the consequences of that conclusion, allowing consumers to decide whether they wish to be contractually bound to a trader, and of information necessary for proper performance of that contract and, in particular, for the exercise of their rights (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 May 2022, Victorinox, C‑179/21, EU:C:2022:353, paragraph 26).

46 As regards, specifically, the pre-contractual information obligation in Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2011/83, that provision states that the trader must inform the consumer of the main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate to the medium used and to the goods or services.

47 It follows that the extent of the information which must be communicated beforehand by a trader in the context of a contract for the international carriage of goods must be assessed in the light of, inter alia, the nature of the service.

48 The fact that importing the goods carried may require customs formalities is likely to have a significant impact on the performance of the carriage service provided, by delaying or even preventing delivery of the goods or by giving rise to additional charges. Consequently, as the Advocate General observed, in essence, in point 62 of her Opinion, taking account of the cross-border nature of contracts for the international carriage of goods and of the fact that importing goods from a third country may, depending on the circumstances, be subject to customs duties, it is reasonable to conclude that customs formalities constitute one of the main characteristics of those types of contract, as provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 2011/83, of which a consumer must be informed by the trader before the contract is concluded.

49 Therefore, in the context of a contract for carriage, such as the contract at issue in the main proceedings, the trader carrier is under a duty to inform the consumer that importing carried goods may require customs formalities to be completed.

50 However, where the trader undertakes solely to provide carriage of the goods without otherwise providing a customs brokerage service, that trader cannot be under a duty to provide detailed information on the documents to be presented to customs. In that regard, the referring court notes that it is apparent from Article 11(1) and (2) of the CMR that it is for the sender to place at the disposal of the carrier the documents necessary for the customs formalities to be completed and that the carrier is under no duty to inquire into either the accuracy or adequacy of such documents.

51 In the second place, as regards Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83, it should be recalled that, under that provision, the trader must inform the consumer of the total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or, where the nature of the goods or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be calculated, as well as, where applicable, all additional freight, delivery or postal charges or, where those charges cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the fact that such additional charges may be payable.

52 It follows from the wording of that article that (i) a distinction must be made between the indication of the final price and that relating to the manner in which that price is calculated, (ii) the nature of the service determines the situation in which that price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance by the trader, and (iii) if the trader is unable to indicate that price, the trader must indicate the methods on the basis of which it is calculated or, in other words, the method for calculating the final price (see, by analogy, judgment of 23 January 2025, NEW Niederrhein Energie und Wasser, C‑518/23, EU:C:2025:35, paragraph 30). Moreover, regardless of the reference to the total price or the method of calculating that price, account must be taken of the additional charges which may be added to the total price of the service and which, if they cannot be calculated in advance, must be indicated to the consumer as potentially being payable.

53 Furthermore, it is apparent from Article 6(1)(i) of the CMR that customs duties form part of the ‘charges relating to the carriage’ which must be referred to in the consignment note for an international carriage of goods by road.

54 In so far as they are payable not because of the performance of the carriage service as such, but because of the introduction into the customs territory of the European Union of the goods being carried, customs duties must be regarded as additional charges, within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83, which are added to the total price of the carriage service.

55 Because customs duties are calculated in the light of the goods to be carried, the trader may not have, in advance and precisely, all the components of the total price, with the result that the trader may not be in a position to communicate to the consumer the method for calculating that price in such a way that the person concerned can carry out that calculation himself or herself (see, by analogy, judgment of 23 January 2025, NEW Niederrhein Energie und Wasser, C‑518/23, EU:C:2025:35, paragraph 38).

56 In that context, in contracts for the international carriage of goods, it is not always possible for the trader to calculate the total price of the service ‘inclusive of taxes’ before the contract of carriage is concluded, in particular since the exact amount of the customs duties may depend on certain factors which may not be known in advance, such as, for example, the value of the goods, their tariff classification and their origin.

57 Accordingly, in the context of the obligation to provide information laid down in Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83, the trader is under a duty to inform the consumer solely of the fact that customs duties may be payable, which constitute additional charges payable by the consumer which cannot reasonably be calculated in advance and included in the price of the carriage service.

58 Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a contract for the international carriage of goods by road from a third country to a destination in a Member State of the European Union, the obligation on the trader to provide information under that provision entails informing the sender-consumer that importing the goods into the territory of the European Union may require customs formalities to be completed and that customs duties may be payable by that consumer. However, the trader is under no duty either to provide detailed information on the documents to be presented to customs or to indicate the rates and amounts of customs duties applicable.

 Costs

59 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of 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, as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019,

must be interpreted as meaning that, in a contract for the international carriage of goods by road from a third country to a destination in a Member State of the European Union, the obligation on the trader to provide information under that provision entails informing the sender-consumer that importing the goods into the territory of the European Union may require customs formalities to be completed and that customs duties may be payable by that consumer. However, the trader is under no duty either to provide detailed information on the documents to be presented to customs or to indicate the rates and amounts of customs duties applicable.