The ability for a consumer, to sue a foreign trader before the domestic courts, does not require, that the disputed agreement was concluded at a distance

The ability for a consumer, to sue a foreign trader before the domestic courts, does not require, that the disputed agreement was concluded at a distance.

Therefore, the instance involves, that the consumer has gone to contract in the Member State of the trader, the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of the consumer not from. The Unionsrecht1 to protect consumers as weaker parties in cross-border disputes, by improving access to justice is facilitated in particular by geographic proximity to the competent court him. So the consumer can the trader, with which it has concluded a contract, even sued in the domestic courts, if it is domiciled in another Member State, namely under two conditions: First, the trader must exercise his commercial or professional activities in the Member State, in which the consumer is domiciled, or by any means (of. B. via the Internet) Align this Mitgliedstaat2, and secondly, the services covered by the contract dispute in the scope of such activities must fall.

The Austrian Supreme Court asking the Court, whether the possibility, to address the domestic courts, also presupposes, that the contract between the consumer and the entrepreneur was concluded at a distance.

The Supreme Court is the final instance dealing with an application, Women Mühlleitner, who lives in Austria, the Austrian courts against in Hamburg (Germany) based dealership Yusufi brought. This action Mühlleitner woman seeks the conversion of the sales contract for the vehicle, it has acquired at the car dealership Yusufi for their private use. On the offer the dealership Yusufi woman came Mühlleitner about their research on the Internet. Signing the purchase agreement and acquisition of the car but they went to Hamburg. Back in Austria, she discovered, that the vehicle had significant defects. As the business owner A. und W. Yusufi refused, to repair the vehicle, rose woman Mühlleitner action before the Austrian courts, their international jurisdiction is alleged by the defendants. However, the Supreme Court considers, that its business activities have been quite focused on Austria sei3, because their website was accessible there, and that remote contacts (Phone, E-Mails) have given between the Parties. However, it raises the question, whether the jurisdiction of the Austrian courts do not presume, that the contract had been concluded at a distance.

In its judgment delivered today, the Court answers, that it is possible for a consumer, to sue a company established in another Member State the trader before the courts of his own Member State, does not presuppose, that the contract was concluded at a distance.

Although demanded by the European regulation to 2024, that the consumer took the steps necessary for the conclusion of that contract in his country of residence, However, the current Regelung6 does not contain such a requirement. This change of the Union legislature intended to enhance the protection of consumers. The essential condition for the application of this scheme is that of the trade or profession, which is aligned to the state of residence of the consumer. In that regard, both the recording of telephone contact as well as the booking of goods or services at a distance, and even the conclusion of a consumer distance contract indications, that the contract adjoins such activity. Therefore, the consumer has a resident in a Member State other traders also be sued in the courts of his own Member State, if the contract is not in
Distance has been completed, because he was signed in the Member State of the trader, firstly if the trader his commercial or professional activities in the
Exerts Member State of residence of the consumer or to target them in some way to this Mitgliedstaat7 and secondly, the contract at issue in the scope of this activity falls.

Please rate

For more information: