Cross-Border Remote B2C Contracts in the Practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Is the Consumer always Right?

The paper analyzes the legal positions of the Court of the European Union, developed when considering disputes arising from cross-border remote B2C (business to consumer) contracts. In particular, the criteria proposed by the Court of the European Union for determining the “orientation” of the professional party’s activity to the country of the consumer’s place of residence are being investigated. Based on the study of the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is concluded that consumers in the European Union are provided with increased legal protection as an economically weak party.
The author summarizes that the Court of the European Union has developed a number of legal positions. In particular, the Court proposed an open list of criteria for determining the “direction” of the professional party’s activities to the country of the consumer’s place of residence. In addition, it was noted that the “direction of the professional party’s activities when concluding remote contracts is evidenced by the website that reads that the professional party implied the implementation of transactions with consumers residing in one or more member States, including the member State of the consumer’s place of residence. However, the mere fact of having access to the website of an intermediary or entrepreneur in the member state in which the consumer resides is not enough. The same applies to the indication of an e-mail address or other contact information, or the use of a language or currency that is usually used in the Member State of the place of establishment of an economic entity, which corresponds to paragraph 24 of the preamble to the Rome I Regulation.

1. Asoskov AV. Kollizionnoe regulirovanie razlichnykh vidov transgranichnykh dogovorov s uchastiem potrebitelya [Conflict of laws regulation of various types of cross-border contracts with the participation of the consumer]. Khozyaystvo i pravo [Business and Law]. 2011;5(412):20-34. (In Russ.).

2. Kanashevskiy VA. Kollizionnoe regulirovanie dogovorov s uchastiem potrebiteley [Conflict of laws regulation of contracts with the participation of consumers]. Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe i chastnoe pravo [Public and private international law]. 2016;4:22-25. (In Russ.).

3. Muratova OV. Kontseptsiya transnatsionalnogo potrebitelskogo prava v sovremennom mire [The Concept of Transnational Consumer Law in the Modern World]. Lex russica. 2019;7(152):23-24. (In Russ.).

4. Neznamov AV. Osobennosti kompetentsii po rassmotreniyu internet-sporov [Features of competence in the consideration of Internet disputes]. Moscow: Infotropik Media; 2011. (In Russ.).

5. Terenteva LV. Kriteriy napravlennosti deyatelnosti professionalnoy storony na territoriyu strany mesta zhitelstva potrebitelya kak uslovie spetsialnogo kollizionnogo regulirovaniya potrebitelskikh otnosheniy [The Reason for the Professional to Direct his Activities to the State the Consumer’s Domicile as a Condition for Special Conflict Regulation of Consumer Relations]. Aktualnye problemy rossiyskogo prava. 2020;15(4): 142-144. (In Russ.).

6. Terenteva LV. Osnovaniya ustanovleniya mezhdunarodnoy sudebnoy yurisdiktsii primenitelno k transgranichnym potrebitelskim sporam v tsifrovuyu epokhu [Ground for establishing international judicial jurisdiction in relation to cross-border consumer disputes in digital era]. Lex russica. 2019;11:96-107. (In Russ.).