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

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.

LanguageEnglish
Pages163-175
Number of pages13
JournalNetherlands International Law Review
Volume64
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Apr 2017

Fingerprint

private law
court of justice
international law
EU
fairness
contract terms
Law
collective behavior
electronics
organization

Keywords

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

Cite this

@article{dc6a08ddd6294a9c8c4e74cc45c3988f,
title = "Judicial Decisions on Private International Law: Court of Justice of the European Union 28 July 2016, Case C-191/15 Verein f{\"u}r Konsumenteninformation v. Amazon EU S{\`a}rl ECLI:EU:C:2016:612",
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.",
keywords = "Collective action, Conflict rules, Unfair terms in b2c contracts, Unfairness choice-of-law term",
author = "Jacobien Rutgers",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s40802-017-0084-3",
language = "English",
volume = "64",
pages = "163--175",
journal = "Netherlands International Law Review",
issn = "0165-070X",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Judicial Decisions on Private International Law

T2 - Netherlands International Law Review

AU - Rutgers,Jacobien

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Collective action

KW - Conflict rules

KW - Unfair terms in b2c contracts

KW - Unfairness choice-of-law term

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018959372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018959372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40802-017-0084-3

DO - 10.1007/s40802-017-0084-3

M3 - Article

VL - 64

SP - 163

EP - 175

JO - Netherlands International Law Review

JF - Netherlands International Law Review

SN - 0165-070X

IS - 1

ER -