Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Justice—Consumer Protection

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Interconnection of the EU Regulations Brussels I Recast and Rome I

Part of the book series: Short Studies in Private International Law ((SSIL))

  • 498 Accesses

Abstract

The Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Rome I Regulation acknowledge that the need for protection of the weaker party is even more pressing in situations that have a cross-border dimension. Both Regulations show their tandem function of protecting consumers with rules that are more beneficial than the general ones and set out almost identical preconditions for their application. In the realm of consumer contracts, the discrepancies between the procedural justice model under the Brussels I Recast Regulation and the conflict of laws justice model under the Rome I Regulation are reduced as social values under substantial law have been transferred into private international law. Save for exceptions, jurisdiction and applicable law can be determined by the same criteria, which will lead to a synchronisation of forum and ius. A mutual transfer of the Court of Justice case law across the legal acts will be possible. Due to different concepts and the application of a favor defensoris principle, certain frictions nevertheless remain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kronman 1980, p. 472; for an overview of European social justice concepts in private law, see Micklitz 2011, 5.

  2. 2.

    For changing paradigms and the consumer Leitbild, see Micklitz 2009, p. 419; Reich 2015, 326.

  3. 3.

    For an overview of European social justice concepts in private law, see Micklitz 2011, 5. For the idea of achieving a fair balance of wealth, see Kronman 1980, p. 472.

  4. 4.

    Abundant literature exists on aspects of consumer protection in the European Union, see, e.g., Reich and Micklitz 2014; Weatherill 2013; Devenney and Kenny 2012; Hill 2008; Lurger and Augenhofer 2008; Calliess 2006. For the relevance of behavioural insights to consumer protection, see Sibony and Helleringer 2015.

  5. 5.

    Case C-210/96 Gut Springenheide and Tusky [1998] ECR I-4657 [31]; Case C-303/97, Kessler [1999] ECR I-513 [36]; Case C-358/01, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain [2003] ECR I-13145, [56].

  6. 6.

    For the information paradigm, see e.g. Reich and Micklitz 2014, pp. 21–22; for alternatives, see Busch 2016.

  7. 7.

    Id., 45.

  8. 8.

    Rühl 2007, p. 37.

  9. 9.

    Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations by Giuliano and Lagarde [1980] OJ C 282/1, 25.

  10. 10.

    Cf., however, Case C-464/01 Gruber v Bay Wa AG [2005] ECR I-439 [43] (negative turn supports a restrictive interpretation).

  11. 11.

    Case 150/77 Bertrand v Paul Ott KG [1978] ECR 1431 [22]; see also Case C-89/91 Shearson Lehmann Hutton v TVB [1993] ECR I-139 [22].

  12. 12.

    Explanatory Report by Pocar (Pocar Report) on the Lugano Convention 2007 [2009] C 319/1, 80.

  13. 13.

    That financial contracts fall under the general clause of consumer contracts is supported by the exception provided by Article 6(4)(d) of the Rome I Regulation, which excludes from its scope rights and obligations which constitute a financial instrument.

  14. 14.

    Garcimartín 2008, p. 71.

  15. 15.

    Mankowski 2006, p. 149; Calliess 2003, p. 352.

  16. 16.

    Except for the special types of consumer contracts for the (a) sale of goods on instalment credit terms and (b) for a loan repayable by instalment or for any other form of credit made to finance the sale of goods.

  17. 17.

    The Brussels I Recast Regulation determines therefore both international and national jurisdiction.

  18. 18.

    Of course, numerous sources of law, dealing with EU norms on conflict of laws, contain provisions on consumer protection. For reasons of brevity and context, these will not be discussed here.

  19. 19.

    Article 19(3) [The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement] ‘which is entered into by the consumer and the other party to the contract, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same Member State, and which confers jurisdiction on the courts of that Member State, provided that such an agreement is not contrary to the law of that Member State’.

  20. 20.

    Proposal for Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) COM(2005) 650 final, 6.

  21. 21.

    Basedow 2015, p. 416, para 628 and references cited there.

  22. 22.

    Plender and Wilderspin 2009, p. 249.

  23. 23.

    Joint Cases C-585/08 Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co. KG and C-144/09 Hotel Alpenhof Gesmbh v Oliver Hellerand [2010] I-12527 [51]; C-190/11 Mühlleitner v Yusufi [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:542 [26].

  24. 24.

    C-190/11 [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:542.

  25. 25.

    Case C-218/12 [2014] EU:C:2013:666.

  26. 26.

    The frequently used term ‘mixed contract’ should be avoided since, to use the words of GA Jacobs, there is “no such thing as a ‘mixed contract’”. Indeed, EU PIL looks at the whole contractual relationship and will qualify it as a consumer contract or not.

  27. 27.

    Reich 2014, p. 324 (too narrow).

  28. 28.

    Case C-498/16 [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:37 Schrems vs Facebook Ireland Ltd. The Court focused on predictability and legal expectations of the other party to the contract to deny consumer protection for a situation where claims from a number of consumers were assigned to one consumer. See Schmon 2018, p. 248. Under conflict of laws rules, the qualification may be different since Rome I determines the applicable law at the time of the conclusion of the contract. It is not concerned with the roles of the parties (claimant or defendant) at the time the proceeding is instituted.

  29. 29.

    Opinion of GA Jacobs, 16 September 2004, Case C-464/01 Gruber v Bay Wa AG [2005] ECR I-439, 40.

  30. 30.

    Case C-27/02 Engler v Janus Versand [2005] ECR I-471; for prize notifications in general, see Schmon 2009, p. 19; see also Zheng Tang 2010, p. 14 (considering the interpretation by the CJEU as too narrow because the inequality of litigation power justifies a protection).

  31. 31.

    Recital 18 of Brussels I Recast and Recital 23 of Rome I.

  32. 32.

    Kropholler 1978, p. 634.

  33. 33.

    Nielsen 2007, p. 315; see also Report by Professor Dr. Peter Schlosser on the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice [1979] OJ C 59/71, 158. For e-commerce under the Brussels I Regulation, see Bonomi 2015, p. 226.

  34. 34.

    Sachse 2006, p. 25; Kropholler 1978, p. 656 (no substantial-law but typical conflict of laws-protection).

  35. 35.

    Case C-508/12 Vapenik v Thurner [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2013:790 (interpreting the EU Enforcement Order on uncontested claims with reference to the Brussels I and the Rome I Regulation). The Court made clear that there is no imbalance when both persons are engaged in commercial activities nor when both persons are not engaged in such activities [32-33].

  36. 36.

    For the situation under the Brussels Convention, see Pfeiffer 2000, p. 621.

  37. 37.

    Neuhaus 1976, p. 257 (dominance of the strong over the weak).

  38. 38.

    Basedow 2015, p. 415, paras 626–627.

  39. 39.

    See, e.g., the works of the Lando-Group, GEDIP, SECOLA, and the Study Group on Social Justice in European Contract Law. For social justice in EU private law see, e.g., Study Group on Social Justice in European Private Law 2004, pp. 653–674; see also Collins (2011), pp. 133–166.

  40. 40.

    Leible 2006, p. 366; cf., however, Id., p. 370 (criticising the principle of favourability as neither serving neither the justice of material law nor that of conflict of laws).

  41. 41.

    Zweigert 1973, p. 435.

  42. 42.

    Kegel and Schurig 2004, p. 131; for critique on this formula, see Juenger 1974, p. 8. For the process of materialisation, see also Sachse 2006, pp. 12–25. Dornis 2015, p. 183.

  43. 43.

    Liukkunen 2012, pp. 125–126. It must be noted that under Article 23 of the Rome I Regulation, provisions of EU law which, in relation to particular matters, lay down conflict-of-law rules relating to contractual obligations, stay untouched by the Regulation. Attention should be drawn to special conflict provisions in Directives aiming at protecting the EU internal law standard by restricting a choice of law where there is a strong connection to the EU.

  44. 44.

    Calliess 2003, p. 345; for the legislative history and different versions of the special provisions in the Brussels Convention 1968, see Hill 2008, p. 80.

  45. 45.

    Nielsen 2007, Article 15, para 12; Report by Professor Dr. Peter Schlosser on the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice [1979] OJ C 59/71, 117-118.

  46. 46.

    Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations by Giuliano and Lagarde [1980] OJ C 282/1, 23.

  47. 47.

    With the exception for certain contracts that involve a credit element, Article 13 of the Brussels Convention required for contract regarding the supply of goods or a contract for the supply of services, that, in the State of the consumer’s domicile, the conclusion of the contract was preceded by a specific invitation addressed to him or by advertising; and that the consumer took in that State the steps necessary for the conclusion of the contract.

  48. 48.

    For more on the deficits of Article 5 of the Rome Convention, Nemeth 2000, p. 46; Meškić 2008, p. 115.

  49. 49.

    Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters COM/99/0348 final, 11.

  50. 50.

    Calliess 2003, p. 349 (‘states with a relatively high level of consumer protection develop a public interest in the application of their mandatory protection regime even in international situations’).

  51. 51.

    Green Paper on the Conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations into a Community Instrument and its Modernization, COM(2002) 654 final, 16.

  52. 52.

    Id., 26.

  53. 53.

    Lein 2008, pp. 191–192.

  54. 54.

    Comments on the European Commission’s Green Paper, p. 56.

  55. 55.

    See also Leible 2009, p. 43; Bitter 2008, p. 96; Lein 2008, p. 177.

  56. 56.

    Recitals 16 of both Regulations; Recital 39 of the Rome I Regulation.

  57. 57.

    Recitals 6, 39 of the Rome I Regulation; Recital 15 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation.

  58. 58.

    Joint Cases C-585/08 Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co. KG and C-144/09 Hotel Alpenhof Gesmbh v Oliver Hellerand [2010] I-12527 [43].

  59. 59.

    Saumier 2014, p. 205.

  60. 60.

    Joint Cases C-585/08 Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co. KG and C-144/09 Hotel Alpenhof Gesmbh v Oliver Hellerand [2010] I-12527 [75].

  61. 61.

    Id. [74]. This is in line with the joint declaration by the Council and the Commission on Article 15 of the Brussels I Regulation, anchored in Recital 24 of the Rome I Regulation. It can be seen as an attempt to correct or clarify the badly drafted Recital 13 of the Proposal for the Regulation 44/2001, according to which the accessibility of goods and services in another Member State constitutes an activity directed to that State (COM(1999) 348 final). For the limited authority of Recitals, see under 3.3. (Authority of Recitals).

  62. 62.

    Amended proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM/2000/0689, 7. Such understanding and (perceived) difficulties to establish the facts in the individual case led to vivid discussions about the design of the EU Regulation on geo-blocking (Regulation (EU) 2018/302). It was submitted that if the trader were obliged not to prevent access to their online interfaces based on the consumer’s country of residence, then it would no longer be apparent from the website whether the trader was envisaging doing business with the consumer. However, this view disregards that the mere question whether a trader enables consumers to access the webpage and to submit an offer to buy a product will be but only one piece in the puzzle of the over-all assessment. Already the Court stressed that compliance with mandatory information set out by legislation will not constitute evidence of an intention of the trader to do business (id. [74]). The same rationale applies to other mandatory provisions traders need to respect. The directed-activity formula allows taking into account all facts of the case, including the activity of unsolicited selling by request of a consumer. In borderline cases, traders may use an entire range of options to indicate that they do not intent to direct their activities into the one or the other country.

  63. 63.

    The approach of the proposal of the Rome I Regulation to not grant consumer protection where the professional ‘did not know where the consumer had his habitual residence and this ignorance was not attributable to his negligence’ was rejected by the European Parliament. An awareness test was also proposed by GEDIP. The exception for contracts for the supply of services where the services are to be supplied exclusively in a country other than that in which the consumer has his habitual residence under Article 6(4)(a) of the Rome I Regulation is therefore an anomaly, which cannot be explained by reasonable expectations of the consumer either. See, however, the reasoning in the Giuliano/Lagarde Report, 24 (the consumer ‘cannot reasonably expect the law of his State of origin to be applied in derogation from the general rules’). It could, however, be explained by a particular strong connection to that state (id. at 24), which, however, could not explain the exception for package travel, see Leible 2006, p. 368.

  64. 64.

    Case 29/10, Koelzsch v. État du Grand Duchy of Luxemburg [2011] ECR I-1595 [41, 43]; Case C-384/10 Voogsgeerd v Navimer [2011] ECR I-13275 [35].

References

  • Basedow J (2015) The Law of Open Societies – Private Ordering and Public Regulation in the Conflict of Laws. Brill Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitter AK (2008) Auslegungszusammenhang zwischen Brüssel I-VO und Rom I-VO. IPRax 96–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi A (2015) Jurisdiction over Consumer Contracts. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 213–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch C (2016) The future of pre-contractual information duties: from behavioural insights to big data. In: Twigg-Flesner C (ed) EU Consumer and Contract Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 221–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess G-P (2003) Coherence and Consistency in European Consumer Contract Law: a Progress Report. GLJ 4:333–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess G-P (2006) Grenzüberschreitende Verbraucherverträge. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins H (2011) The constitutionalization of European private law as a path to social justice? In: Micklitz H (ed) The Many Concepts of Social Justice in European Private Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 133–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Devenney J, Kenny M (2012) European Consumer Protection: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornis TW (2015) Die Theorie der local data: dogmatische Bruchstelle im klassischen IPR. SZIER/RSDIE 25:183–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcimartín AF (2008) The Rome I-Regulation: Much ado about nothing? EuLF 2:61–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill J (2008) Cross-border Consumer Contracts. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Juenger F (1974) Zum Wandels des Internationales Privatrechts. Juristische Studiengesellschaft Karlsruhe Schriftenreihe, Karlsruhe

    Google Scholar 

  • Kegel G, Schurig K (2004) Internationales Privatrecht, 9th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronman AT (1980) Contract Law and Distributive Justice. Yale L. J. 89:472–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Kropholler J (1978) Das kollisionsrechtliche System des Schutzes der schwächeren Vertragspartei. RabelsZ 42:634–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Leible S (2006) Internationales Vertragsrecht, die Arbeiten an einer Rom I-Verordnung und der Europäische Vertragsgerichtsstand. IPRax 365–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Leible S (2009) Rom I und Rom II: Neue Perspektiven im Europäischen Kollisionsrecht. Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht 173:43–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Lein E (2008) The New Rome I/Rome II/Brussels I Synergy. YPIL 10:177–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Liukkunen US (2012) Collision Between the Economic and the Social - What Has Private International Law Got to Do with It? In: Letto-Vanamo P, Smits J (eds) Coherence and Fragmentation in European Private Law. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Cologne, pp 125–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Lurger B, Augenhofer S (2008) Österreichisches und Europäisches Konsumentenschutzrecht. Springer, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2006) Art 5 des Vorschlags für eine Rom I-Verordnung – Revolution im Internationalen Verbrauchervertragsrecht? ZvglRWiss 105:120–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Meškić Z (2008) Europäisches Verbraucherrecht – gemeinschaftliche vorgaben und europäische Perspektiven. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz H (2009) Jack is out of the Box – the Efficient Consumer-Shopper. In: Bärlund JC et al (eds) Festschrift T Wilhelmsson. 3-4 Tidskrift Utgiven av Juridiska Foreningen i Finland (JFT), The Law Society of Finland, Helsinki, pp 417–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz H (2011) Introduction. In: Micklitz H (ed) The Many Concepts of Social Justice. Cheltenham/Northampton, Edward Elgar, pp 3–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth K (2000) Kollisionsrechtlicher Verbraucherschutz in Europa. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhaus PH (1976) Die Grundbegriffe des internationalen Privatrechts, 2nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen PA (2007) Jurisdiction over consumer contracts. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I Regulation: European Commentaries on Private International Law. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 301–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer T (2000) Materialisierung und Internationalisierung im Recht der Internationalen Zuständigkeit. In: Canaris W, Heldrich A (eds) 50 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof - Festgabe aus der Wissenschaft. Beck, Munich, 617–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Plender R, Wilderspin M (2009) The European Private International Law of Obligations, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich N (2014) Cross-Border Consumer Protection. In: Reich N et al (eds) European Consumer Law, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 285–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich N (2015) Leitbilder des Europäischen Verbraucherrechts – Funktionale Differenzierung vs. zunehmende Individualisierung? In: Kohte W, Absenger N (eds) Festschrift für Arming Höland, Menschenrechte und Solidarität im internationalen Diskurs. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 326–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich N, Micklitz H (2014) Economic Law, Consumer Interests, and EU Integration. In: Reich N et al (eds) European Consumer Law, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 1–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Rühl G (2007) Party Autonomy in the Private International Law of Contracts: Transatlantic Convergence and Economic Efficiency. CLPE Research Paper 4:1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachse K (2006) Der Verbrauchervertrag im Internationalen Privat- und Prozessrecht, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Saumier G (2014) Case Emrek: Expanding jurisdiction for consumer claims under the Brussels regime. EJCL 199–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmon C (2009) Gewinnzusagen im europäischen Zivilverfahrensrecht. JAP 19:171–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmon C (2018) Schrems vs Facebook: Internationale Zuständigkeit bei Forderungsabtretung. ecolex 248–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibony A-L, Helleringer G (2015) EU Consumer Protection and Behavioural Sciences: Revolution or Reform? In: Alemanno A, Sibony A-L (eds) Nudge and the Law: A European Perspective. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 209–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Study Group on Social Justice in European Private Law (2004) Social Justice in European Contract Law: A Manifesto. European Law Journal, 10:653–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang ZS (2010) Private International Law in Consumer Contracts: A European Perspective. JPIL 6:225–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2013) EU Consumer Law and Policy, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert K (1973) Zur Armut des IPR an sozialen Werten. RabelsZ 37: 435

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nottingham, UK

    Dr. Christoph Schmon

Authors
  1. Dr. Christoph Schmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schmon, C. (2020). Social Justice—Consumer Protection. In: The Interconnection of the EU Regulations Brussels I Recast and Rome I. Short Studies in Private International Law . T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-367-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-367-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-366-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-367-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation