Judicial Decisions on Private International Law: Court of Justice of the European Union 28 July 2016, Case C-191/15 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Amazon EU Sàrl ECLI:EU:C:2016:612

Jacobien Rutgers*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In Amazon the CJEU decided which conflict rules applied to a claim in collective proceedings that was initiated by a consumer organization to prohibit allegedly unfair terms contained in the general terms and conditions of a seller. The terms were used in electronic b2c contracts, where the seller targeted consumers in their home country. The CJEU distinguished between the conflict rule concerning collective action, Article 6(1) Rome II, and the conflict rule concerning the fairness of the term, Article 6(2) Rome I. In addition, the CJEU introduced a new test to assess the fairness of a choice-of-law term under Directive 93/13 on unfair contract terms. In the note, it is argued that the CJEU’s distinction between those two conflict rules is unnecessary and that the test that the CJEU formulated to assess whether a choice-of-law term is unfair, is less favourable to the consumer than the tests formulated in prior decisions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)163-175
Number of pages13
JournalNetherlands International Law Review
Volume64
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2017

Keywords

  • Collective action
  • Conflict rules
  • Unfair terms in b2c contracts
  • Unfairness choice-of-law term

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Judicial Decisions on Private International Law: Court of Justice of the European Union 28 July 2016, Case C-191/15 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Amazon EU Sàrl ECLI:EU:C:2016:612'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this