Brussels, 08/12/2010 (Agence Europe) - The fact that a trader is listed on a website or uses one for business does not in itself suffice to make his/her business “directed towards” consumers in other member states, who can only benefit from protection provided under EU Regulation 44/2001/EC if the business is directed towards them.
This is the essence of a Court of Justice ruling issued by the Grand Chamber on 8 December 2010, responding to three questions lodged by Austria's supreme court in Cases C-585/08 and C-144/09. The Austrian court asked for interpretation of court powers under civil and commercial law in EU Regulation 44/2001/EC to decide which law applies for consumer contracts for goods and services over the internet.
The regulation stipulates that as a general rule, court cases against individuals registered in a member state must be made at the courts of that country. It adds that disputes arising from contracts can be settled by the court of the location where the obligation arising under the contract has or should be met. For consumer contracts, however, the same regulation protects the consumer and if the trader “directs his/her business towards” the member state where the consumer is registered, then the consumer can take a case to court in that same member state and the consumer can only be taken to court him/herself in that same member state.
This raises the question of deciding whether traders “direct” business towards member states by using websites to communicate with customers. The Court explains that business is indeed directed where the trader manifests the desire to establish business relations with consumers in one or more member states. In order to decide whether this is the case, the Court says that it should be verified whether, before the signing of any contract with the consumer, the websites and the trader's overall business demonstrates that the trader is indeed planning to do business with consumers based in one or more member states in the sense that the trader was prepared to sign a contract with them. It is for national courts to decide where cases should be judged and should seek indications to this effect like statements of the trader's business aims (to seek consumers by offering goods and services in several specific member states or spending money on search engines to fine web references to make it easier for consumers from other member states to find the trader's own website, for example). The Court of Justice says that less obvious signs can also bear witness to business “directed towards” the member state where a consumer is registered, like an international prefix in telephone numbers, maps and address indications showing how to reach the company from other member states, references from international clients, the use of first degree domain names, the use of languages or currencies other than the ones of the member state where the trader is registered, etc). Listing the trader's email address, postal address or telephone number on a website without the international prefix would not be suitable indications. (F.G. trans/fl)