European Union: Court Of Justice Of European Union Rules On Jurisdiction For Disputes Relating To Cross-Border Consumer Contracts

On 17 October 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "ECJ") ruled on a preliminary reference from a German court concerning the interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the "Brussels Regulation") (ECJ, case C-218/12, Lokman Emrek v. Vlado Sabranovic).

Departing from the general principle that disputes should be brought before the courts of the EU Member State where the defendant is domiciled, Article 15(1)(c) of the Regulation allows a consumer to bring an action before the courts of the EU Member State of his own domicile in case "the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the consumer's domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that Member State or to several States including that Member State, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities".

The preliminary question arose in the context of proceedings between Mr Emrek, a consumer, and Mr Sabranovic, a French trader selling second-hand motor vehicles. On his website, Mr Sabranovic had mentioned both a French telephone number and a German mobile phone number, including the respective international codes.

While Mr Emrek had not learned about Mr Sabranovic's motor vehicles business from the website but, instead, through acquaintances, he claimed that the commercial activities concerned were, through the website, also directed at German consumers. Therefore, he considered Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels Regulation to apply. Mr Emrek also argued that Article 15(1)(c) does not require the establishment of a causal link between the means used to direct the activity to the EU Member State in which the consumer is domiciled, in this case the Internet site, and the conclusion of the contract with the consumer.

The German court decided to stay the proceedings and question the ECJ on whether, for Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels Regulation to apply, it is sufficient that a foreign trader clearly directs its activities to another EU Member State or, instead, whether there is an unwritten condition requiring a causal link between the offer and the contract.

The ECJ started by pointing out that the actual wording of Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels Regulation does not expressly require a causal link.

It continued its analysis by claiming that such a causal link would be contrary to the aim of the Regulation, which is to protect the weaker party to a cross-border sales contract (i.e., the consumer). Moreover, it could be extremely difficult to prove such a causal link. This uncertainty could dissuade consumers from bringing actions before the national courts of their domicile. Therefore, the ECJ found that there is no unwritten condition requiring a causal link.

However, the ECJ added that, should a causal link exist, this would be strong evidence of the fact that the activity of the trader was directed to the EU Member State in which the consumer is domiciled.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.