Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

I. Clarifying the ‘Philosophy of Article 15’ in the Brussels I Regulation

C-585/08 Peter Pammer v Reedere Karl Schluter GMBH & Co and C-144/09 Hotel Alpenhof Gesmbh v Oliver Heller

Bibliographic Data

ID9930089
AuthorsLorna Gillies, Lorna E Gillies (0000-0002-5025-600X, University of Leicester, corresponding author)
Year2011
Volume60
Issue2
Pages557-564
Publication date2011-04-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational and Comparative Law Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0020-5893 • E-ISSN: 1471-6895
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s002058931100011x
OpenAlexW1991125417
LanguageEN
References cited2

In the Cases C-585/08 Peter Pammer v Reedere Karl Schluter GmbH & Co and C-144/09 Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH v Oliver Heller , the CJEU considered the applicability of article 15(1) (c) of Regulation EC 44/2001 (Brussels I) vis-à-vis the use of web sites in commercial communications with consumers domiciled in other Member States. Article 15 of Brussels I contains special rules which determine the jurisdiction of disputes concerning ‘protected’ 1 consumer contracts falling within its scope. Articles 15(1)(a) and (b) apply where either the contract is subject to an instalment credit arrangement or where the contract is for a loan to finance the sale of goods respectively. These two recent cases were concerned with article 15(1)(c), itself previously regarded by the Commission as the ‘philosophy of Article 15.’ 2 The connecting factors in article 15(1)(c) apply in two situations. 3 The first is where the seller concludes contracts as a result of commercial activities entered into in the Member State of the consumer's domicile. The alternative applies when a business ‘directs’ its professional or commercial activities to the Member State of the consumer's domicile and a contract is concluded as a consequence of those activities. Article 15(2) also (currently) provides that a non-EU defendant corporation which has a branch or agency in a Member State that contracts with a consumer may be regarded as domiciled in that Member State. The cases are important as for the first time references were made to the CJEU to specifically consider and interpret the extent to which a business' web site should be construed as ‘directing [commercial] activities’ towards consumers domiciled in other Member States. Essentially, what kind of activity should be construed as directing activity when a seller or his agent uses a web site with the intention to facilitate contractual activities with consumers located in a Member State

Agency (philosophy · Business · Commission · Corporation · European union · International trade · Jurisdiction · Law and economics · Library science · Loan · Member state · Member states · Political science · Scope (computer science · Sociology · State (computer science · Subject (documents · Computer Science · Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction · Corporate Governance and Law · European and International Contract Law · Finance · Law

  • International Jurisdiction Over Consumer Contracts in e-Europe

    Open Access•Joakim St Øren•International and Comparative Law…•2003

Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae