POLITICO publishes draft Commission proposal on collective redress for European consumers

POLITICO, a well-known news website on European affairs, reports that it has obtained a draft proposal of the European Commission for a new Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, and repealing the Injunctions Directive (2009/22/EC; referred to as "ID"). Last year, the Commission already announced a 'New Deal for Consumers', including an EU-wide class action and collective redress; see our blog post here.

One of the drivers of this development has been the "the inquiry into emission measurements in the automotive sector", i.e. 'Dieselgate'; see our previous blogs here, here and here. Not all Member States provide for collective redress mechanisms tailored for mass harm situations, so not all consumers have access to effective redress opportunities. According to the Commission, the significant disparities among Member States require EU intervention, particularly in light of the cross-border implications; although the proposal applies to domestic infringements of EU law as well.

The draft proposal is a follow-up to the REFIT Fitness Check of EU Consumer and Marketing Law, which also covered the ID, and to Commission Recommendation 2013/396/EU. The Commission states its intention to further strengthen the redress and enforcement aspects of consumer protection (Article 114 TFEU and Article 38 EUCFR), through the establishment of a complementary EU framework supported by procedural rules on the national level. This should also facilitate access to justice (cf. Article 47 EUCFR); possible benefits of collective judicial actions are lower costs and more legal certainty. The proposal is meant as an additional procedural tool: it does not replace existing mechanisms, nor does it affect substantive rights.

The proposed Directive establishes "certain key aspects", but its lack of further detail is also its weakness. For example, it does not specify which divergences between Member States or gaps in the protection of collective consumer interests are most problematic. It does not make a clear distinction either between injunction orders, redress orders and declaratory decisions, nor does it address corresponding procedural complications and modalities.

The Commission does not explain why the ID needs to be improved and which specific elements need an update. It only observes that the key shortcomings of the ID are its limited scope, the limited effects of injunctions on redress for consumers and the costs and length of the procedure. The Commission therefore proposes to enlarge the scope of the future Directive to other horizontal and sector-specific EU instruments, e.g. in the field of financial services, energy, telecommunication, health or the environment. Consumers who have been harmed must be able to rely on a final decision in a representative action (Article 8 draft proposal). The proposal aims to improve the effectiveness of injunctions in terms of deterrence of unlawful practices, as well as fair and adequate compensation for consumers, but how exactly those goals are to be achieved is not elaborated. Moreover, the proposal aims to strike a balance between facilitating access to justice and ensuring adequate safeguards from abusive litigation (frivolous claims), but again modalities are not defined. The proposal works with 'qualified entities' that must satisfy certain criteria (Article 6 draft proposal), and it emphasises the importance of 'due procedural expediency'. However, how this is to be realized is left to the Member States.

In the Netherlands, for instance, a legislative proposal is pending for the introduction of a collective damages action. The ongoing discussion shows how difficult it is to find a balance between access to justice and effective redress on the one hand, and the prevention of abuse on the other; see here and here for more background information. The most controversial issues, such as the designation of a lead plaintiff, opt-in/opt-out possibilities and the calculation of damage, are not addressed in the Commission's draft proposal. 

It is expected that the Commission will announce its proposal (this draft or an amended version) in the next few months. It is far from certain that it will eventually result in a Directive. Whether it will be adopted or not, the proposal is likely to have an impact on the debate on collective redress.

Better enforcement of consumer rights in the car rental sector

Following a large number of complaints received by European Consumer Centers in regard to cross-border car rental services, national enforcement authorities from the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC Network) joined efforts with the EU Commission to improve the protection of consumers in this sector. With the help of the EU trade association Leaseurope, they have reached an agreement with the five major car rental companies (Avis-Budget, Enterprise, Europcar, Hertz and Sixt) representing more than 65% of the EU car rental market, on the 13th of July 2015.

The five major companies promised to respect EU rules on consumer rights, unfair commercial practices and unfair terms. The pledge is to be implemented gradually by the end of 2015.

Key benefits include:

• more transparency on applicable optional and mandatory charges when booking online, 
• better information on available insurance products at the stage of booking,
• improved and more transparent fuel and vehicle inspection policies,
• improved practices for additional charges such as payment for damages.

The agreement definitely sounds good, but some issues remain to be addressed in the future:

• renter's liability for damages to the car caused by others,
• practices of brokers and intermediaries,
• insurance offered as part of car rental packages,
• the language of the contract when bookings are made in another Member State.

See for more information the UK Competition and Markets Authority's (CPC Network coordinator) report: 'Short-term car rental in the European Union'.

Press digest

Air passengers

While the Regulation 261/2004 on air passenger rights is still under review, BBC reported recently on the investigation conducted in the UK by the consumer group Which?. Pursuant to their data between June 2014 and May 2015, ca 900.000 people could be eligible for a compensation for a delayed flight but only ca 38% of them claimed this compensation. Many passengers still don't know about their rights and are not informed about them by the airline. Even worse, airlines often discourage passengers from making this claim by arguing that the delay was beyond their control and therefore an extraordinary circumstance. The process of how to claim this compensation is also often complex. Our advice: see whether any of the online flight claim services operates in your country (such as euclaim, flightclaimservice, flightright). (Delayed airline passengers 'missing out on millions in compensation')

***

Taping client financial consultations

UK financial advisers were worried that they would have to tape meetings with their clients in order to be able to prove that they were acting in clients' best interests. While MIFID II only demands recordings of phone and electronic communications to be made and store, it also recommends such measures for face-to-face meetings. The Financial Conduct Authority, however, does not expect such far-reaching measures to be taken by financial advisers. (FCA will not demand advisers tape client meetings)

***

Mobile phone operators in Ireland breach CRD information duties on the right of withdrawal

The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission in Ireland is taking enforcement action against various mobile phone providers (Vodafone, Eircom, Meteor, Three and UPC) for not providing with sufficient and accurate information on how to withdraw from their contract, in accordance with the Consumer Rights Directive. The service providers are asked to update this information and to inform their most recent consumers of their right to withdraw from the contract. (Mobile operator avoids penalty; Consumer watchdog takes action against Vodafone; Action taken against Eircom, Meteor, Three and UPC)

***

Price discrimination based on nationality in Disneyland Paris

The European Commission has received complaints about Disneyland Paris charging different prices for consumers depending on their nationality. According to the complaints British and German consumers would pay more than French consumers. Generally, it could be considered price discrimination if for the same service people pay more because of their nationality or country of residence, unless Disneyland Paris could justify the need for this price variation. (Disneyland Paris is being investigated for allegedly charging British and German visitors more than the French)

***

European Commission vs Hollywood

The European Commission has started an antitrust procedure against Sky UK and six major US film studios: Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount Pictures, Sony, Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Bros. These six studios have placed contractual restrictions on Sky UK pursuant to which Sky UK may only make their pay-TV services available in the UK and Ireland and not to EU consumers located elsewhere. Since due to these contractual provisions Sky UK cannot choose its clientele based on commercial reasons, incl. national copyright laws, these rules may amount to anti-competitive agreements, prohibited in the EU. US movie studios tend to, however, choose a broadcaster to license for their products in a single Member State and limit their options to share these services cross-border. Considering the increase in the demand for cross-border services in the EU, incl. (online) pay-TV services, these restrictions may be stifling competition. (Commission sends Statement of Objections on cross-border provision of pay-TV services available in UK and Ireland)

***

Uber at the ECJ

On July 20 it was announced that a Spanish court referred to the ECJ for an estimation of the legal character of Uber, and more specifically UberPop services. Uber is one of the examples of the sharing economy companies that enables peer-to-peer transactions through an online P2P platform. There are a lot of uncertainties as to the legal position of the online P2P platform, its rights and obligations and its liability. Can it be seen as merely an (electronic) intermediary in a transaction between two peers or could it be seen as a service provider, etc.? In more and more European countries Uber's operations are questioned (and even banned) under national laws, since the courts do not see the activity of Uber as limited to only providing intermediation services. (EU court to classify Uber: taxi or information company?)

***

Ban of a chemical in imported textiles

Over 10 years ago the use of nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE) in textile manufacture in Europe was banned. This toxic substance is used as a cleaning, dyeing and rinsing agent in textile production, however, when it degrades in the environment it ends up in the bodies of fish, disrupting their hormones. Despite the ban, the negative effect of NPE's degradation did not disappear, since imported textiles contained it and when washed released it into the environment. The Council has now voted unanimously on extending this ban to imports of clothing and other products (to become effective 5 years after the adoption of the new rule). (EU countries agree textile chemical ban)

The end to roaming charges as we know them... or is it?

On July 15 the European Parliament's industry committee approved the deal reached between the Commission and the Council on when to end roaming charges in the EU. Pursuant to this agreement, as of next year prices for calling to/from abroad will drop and as of 15 June 2017 additional charges for cross-border phone calls or the use of internet abroad should be abolished. They "should" be abolished, since we've heard these promises before (MEPs say NO to roaming and YES to open internet). Check the table for details on what roaming charges are to look like in the coming two years. Monique Goyens, Director General of BEUC, is less than enthusiastic about the reached agreement: "Today a deal has been drafted with a date to demolish the last digital borders of roaming charges. However, there is devil in the detail. The abolition of retail roaming prices by 2017 is dependent on a wholesale market review being completed, which promises to be a tough task. We cannot call it the end of roaming when there are built-in exceptions to allow providers to charge consumers when they go abroad if they fear it's too costly. It is critical that the EU and national governments observe the deadline and finally ban roaming" (see EU reaches unambitious deal on Roaming charges and Net Neutrality).

Digital Single Market: equal pricing across the EU and ban of geo-blocking

Many consumers are nowadays aware that they may purchase the same product online from the same trader at a different price in various countries. For example, purchasing flights from Amsterdam to Warsaw could be more expensive than flights from Warsaw to Amsterdam; the same dress sold on the Dutch website of an international clothing designer could be more expensive than on their English website. This difference in pricing could hinder further development of a Single Digital Market and therefore, the investigation into the reasons for it and its functioning has been announced by the European competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager (Competition policy for the Digital Single Market: Focus on e-commerce). Another issue that will be looked into are the geo-blocking software that enables certain service providers to limit provision of their services to certain countries only. For example, if you log in with your account to Netflix in the Netherlands you will access different movie library than in the United States or in the United Kingdom, mostly due to film and TV rights-holders increasing their own income by selling these rights at a different price for various countries; YouTube will not show a certain video to you based on your geographical location (EU plans competition inquiry into e-commerce sector; Europe wants to stop geo-blocking on Netflix and RTE). Vestager said in her speech: “(...) consumers must be allowed to look for the best deals online wherever they want. Contractual bans of so-called passive online sales are therefore considered hardcore restrictions of competition.”

MEPs say NO to roaming and YES to open internet

European Parliament's ITRE Committee agreed with the Commission's proposal of the new Telecoms Regulation (see our previous post: Major telecom sector reform), which among others intends to end roaming charges and prohibit blocking and degrading of online content (e.g. internet providers will not be allowed to block or slow down your access to and use of Skype), guaranteeing net neutrality. (Industry MEPs want stricter rules against blocking rival services) The Regulation will be voted on by the EP Plenary on 3 April and then needs to be approved by the Council. (EP committee vote takes us one step closer to ending roaming charges in the EU) If all goes well then as of 15 December 2015 phone users will stop noticing a difference in the price of phone calls when they are at home and when they are abroad. The EU has successfully lowered roaming charges already - roaming costs are ca 80% cheaper than in 2007, but the Commission intends to eliminate them altogether (MEPs call it a day on roaming charges).

Harmonisation of insurance contract laws?

Short after the Parliament's first reading vote on the Common European (now, Distance) Sales Law, the Commission might be starting a new contract law harmonisation challenge. 

Last Friday, indeed, the previously appointed Expert Group delivered its report on barriers to cross-border trade in insurance products.

Presenting the report, Commissioner Reding underlined how "only a few customers can buy insurance products in other countries, with just 0.6% of all motor insurance premiums and 2.8% of property insurance premiums offered across EU borders." 

The Group's main finding is that important differences exist in the contract law rules of especially life, motor and liability insurance products, which make it harder- and more expensive- for traders to offer "pan-european" products and for consumers/policyholders to take their insurance with them as they move between European countries. Of course rules outside contract law could also play a role in generating such barriers, but these rules remained beyond the Group's subject of investigation.

Unsurprisingly, the problem is found to be less severe in the large risks segment, where the cross-border dimension has been for a longer time usual business. 

Want to know more? You can take a look at the report.

European Consumer Centres in 2013

In 2013, the European Consumer Centres received over 80 000 contacts, resulting in over 30 000 complaints, with a remarkable increase in both figures compared to 2012.
The Centres provide both amicable advice and assistance in furthering complaints. They only deal with cross-border issues, so it's perhaps not surprising that the field which raises the most concerns is that of transport. Less predictably, also healthcare fares pretty high as the fifth most contentious domain.

For the moment, more specific data are not available, but it's likely that they will be posted on ECC-network website in the coming days.

European Enforcement Orders in disputes between "consumers", C-508/12

Today, the CJEU delivered also a judgement concerning enforcement of uncontested cross-border claims: Case C‑508/12 Vapenik v Thurner. 

European Enforcement Orders are a mechanism allowing judgements on uncontested claims to be enforced in a country different than the one where they have been issued without incurring the hurdles of exequatur or validation procedures. 

The dispute concerned repayment of a loan concluded between two parties none of whom was acting in a professional capacity. They were, this, both consumers.The creditor sued in his home country Austria, the procedure ran in accordance with Austrian law and the duly notified debtor decided not to appear before the court. The judgement, which found in favour of the creditor, remained unchallenged and thus became final and enforceable. The creditor then asked the same Austrian court to grant him a European Enforcement order to have the judgement more easily enforced in Belgium, where the debtor lives. The court refused, holding that one of the requirements for issuing such an order against a "consumer" debtor is that the judgement has been given in the state where he has his domicile (see Regulation 805/2004, art 6(1)(d)).

In short, the CJEU found in favour of the claimant, the creditor, who submitted [par 20] that the rule is intended to protect consumers when the other party is a professional and does not apply to "peer to peer" contracts as the one at hand. 

In particular, the court observed [par 33] that "there is also no imbalance between the parties in a contractual relationship such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely that between two persons not engaged in commercial or professional activities. Therefore, that relationship cannot be subject to the system of special protection applicable to consumers contracting with persons engaged in commercial or professional activities."

P.S.: More curious readers might also want to take a look directly at the Court's reasoning in the case, which provides an interesting outlook on (the Court's view on) consumer protection as a system. 

Parliament endorsing proposed EU e-signature

On Tuesday, the European Parliament's Industry committee has voted to endorse a proposal by the commission aiming at imposing mutual recognition if e-signature mechanisms in the Internal Market.
 

The official Dutch way
to e-signature

The proposal would require member states to mutually recognise each other's national electronic identification systems, but also require that such systems be reported to the European Commission. Existing national systems would accordingly not have to change, but would be classified according to their level of security.

This should make it easier for parties negotiating cross-border contracts to identify themselves. Even more importantly, EU citizens moving from one country to another should be able to "carry along" their e-signature and use it to interact also with public administrations different than the one which has issued it. 

The negotiations on the future instrument, which interestingly enough seems like a piece of secondary legislation aiming at negative integration without any previous harmonization effort, will probably begin next month.

Equal property rights for registered partners and married couples

Another vote took place this month at the European Parliament with regard to new matrimonial property rules for international couples. (Simplifying property law for international couples) On 10 September the MEPs adopted a new resolution, recommending that the drafted legislation included the same property rights for registered partners as for married couples in case they separate and need to divide their properties. Original proposal of the Commission would enable married couples to choose which law should be applicable to their joint property (as long as there was a close connection), while registered partners would still be forced to accept the application of the law of the member state in which their partnership was registered. The resolution grants the same rights to registered partners as to married couples, however, their choice of law would not be valid if they choose for a law of a country not recognising registered partnerships. (MEPs call for equal property rights for registered partners and married couples)

Simplifying property law for international couples

A year and a half ago we mentioned the plans of the European Commission to simplify rules on matrimonial property for international couples (No more hiding money while filing for a divorce?). This would allow international couples to avoid excessive costs and uncertainty in case of a divorce, since they would know up front what to expect with regards to splitting their estate - which court would have jurisdiction, what laws would apply etc. Today, the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs voted fully in favour of this regulation, but it still needs approval by the Council to become law. (Commission welcomes progress on proposals to clarify property rights for international couples)

Europe - no hiding place for debtors

Last week the European Parliament was busy with many draft EU laws that could affect consumers in Europe. One of the not-mentioned here yet issues was the matter of cross-border debt recovery. At the moment, both small businesses and consumers may resign themselves to losing some money instead of pursuing often costly (hiring foreign lawyers), timely (translating documents) and complex (understanding different legal system) debt recovery procedures in another Member State (approx. 600 million euro a year in debt is due to such reasons written off). The European Commission proposed already in 2011 a Europe-wide preservation order to ease this debt recovery process (which we have in depth discussed: Cross-border debt recovery to be made easier for consumers and SMEs). Last week (finally) the European Parliament voted on it, and in June the proposal will be discussed in the Council. (European Commission welcomes progress on proposal to help recover cross-border debts)

Does fake equal bad? European Commission thinks so.

Last year we posted about the EU Customs trying to protect consumers from counterfeit goods by strengthening the examination of products entering the EU market etc. (EU helps to keep it real) Now the European Commission published another memo (Too good to be true: the real price of fake products) in which it gives an update on recent data of counterfeit market, as well as calls upon consumers to stop buying such goods. There is a hope that a campaign that would raise consumers awareness about the dangers of counterfeit goods, would deter them from purchasing such products - even if it would have saved them significant money to do so. Despite all the actions taken so far by the EU and national governments, the trade in fake articles grew by 11% between 2010 and 2011. What should scare consumers (or at least make them think twice about buying counterfeit goods) is that almost one third of the articles detained by EU customs in 2011 was found to be potentially dangerous to the health and safety. What other argument is the Commission planning to use? They will try to convince consumers that it is not a bargain to buy a fake product, since the consumer would not get the same quality nor guarantee of durability for less money. Also, even if consumers won't usually think about it, trade in fake goods is likely to lead to the increase of taxes, loss of jobs (in legitimate trade sector that suffers losses), unemployment and higher welfare bills.

Green paper on cross-border parcel delivery

The European Commission has just launched a consultation with stakeholders to collect information on the current state of the delivery markets for products bought online, and to identify any potential hurdles for the creation of an EU-wide integrated parcel delivery market. 

The consultation is open to not only to businesses, but to "virtually everyone who sends or receives parcels". In order to encourage participation of stakeholders (potentially, most of us)respondents do not need to answer every question but can choose the issues that interest them. 

Delivery services are already regulated at the European level, but the concerned legislation was not conceived to explicitly address the modern needs of consumers who buy online.Contributions can be submitted by 15 February 2013. They will later be published on the Commission's website and the Commission will present actions to be taken as "to complete the internal market for parcels". 

For some relevant fats and figures, have a look at the Commission's memo.

European online marketplace

The European Consumer Centre Network (ECC-Net) published a new report on cross-border e-commerce and consumers' experiences with it. The report refers to years 2010-2011 and shows that consumers are still not fully comfortable with concluding transactions online even if the number of transactions gradually increases. This could be evidenced by the fact that more than half consumers' complaints that ECC-Net receives concerns online purchases, e.g., defective goods, non-conformity, non-delivery, no right of withdrawal. The most cases are reported in the Netherlands, Germany, France and Luxembourg. The report contains a checklist both for consumers and traders that they should follow in order to make sure that the transaction will be successful. (Consumers still face obstacles when shopping online)

Making the Small Claims Procedure effective

Since 1 January 2009, the European Small Claims Procedure is in force. Its aim is to improve access to justice by simplifying cross-border small claims litigation in civil and commercial matters and reducing costs and especially to help consumers enforce their rights in cross-border cases.

It concerns claims amounting to maximum €2,000 excluding interest, expenses and disbursements . The consumer can choose whether to bring suit in his country of residence or in the country of the defending company. The decision is directly enforceable in the country of the losing party and in any other EU country. The procedure is conducted mostly in writing using pre-defined forms and it does not require the involvement of a lawyer.

Simple and useful, but... In 2010, a research led by ECC Italy, European Consumer Centres (ECCs) in the 27 EU Member States found that the procedure is relatively unknown – not only among consumers but among judges as well. Although the European Small Claims Procedure itself is in principle straightforward and free of charge, the enforcement of the judgement resulting from this procedure is often protracted by the losing party. As a consequence, only a minority of the positive rulings made by the courts in consumers' home countries, are actually enforced across borders.

Since, even in domestic markets, around 20% of European consumers report having encountered a problem in the past 12 months with a good, service, retailer or provider (with an average estimated loss of €375 per case), the Commission is working to improve the effectiveness of the Small Claim Procedure.

Here are the next steps to be taken:

• work with court authorities to promote awareness of the procedure;
• issue a guide providing practical advice to consumers and legal practitioners;
• raise awareness of the existing standard forms and make information available online in 22 official EU languages, through the European e-Justice Portal, to make it easier to register a claim and see how the procedure works;
• work with ECCs to actively promote the procedure among consumers and judges;
• encourage the ECCs to give concrete assistance to consumers to use the European Small Claims Procedure in individual cases;
• present an evaluation report on the operation of the procedure (including court fees, the speed and the ease of use of the procedure) and if necessary revise the European Small Claims Procedure to make it work more effectively for consumers by, for example, increasing the threshold of €2,000 to cover bigger claims or further simplifying the standard forms used to make a claim.

 Additionally, as of 2013, consumers in around 5-6 pilot countries will be able to complete the small claims forms and carry out the whole court procedure online, via the e-Justice portal.

EU helps to keep it real

"Got a real bargain when I bought this Louis Vuitton wallet for 10 euro". Well, who doesn't like a bargain? Some bargains are too good to be true, though, and it's unlikely that you would get an original product for price that is not anywhere close to the shop price. With certain products a bargain is also not what consumers should be looking for. Spending more money on a product usually guarantees its better quality, its authenticity, which is crucial for the health and safety of consumers when products such as medicines, food etc. are concerned. In order to protect consumers, as well as to protect intellectual property rights, the EU Customs department diligently examines products entering the EU market in order to comply with the EU's 2020 Strategy. In 2011, they detained almost 115 million products suspected of violating IPR (in 2010 that number was just 103 million) valued at 1,3 billion euro. (Report on EU customs enforcement of IPR) Out of these products 24% were medicines, 21% packaging material, 18% cigarettes, products for daily use that could potentially be dangerous to consumers - 28,6%. The main offender is still China (73% of all infringing articles come from there). Fake foodstuff comes usually from Turkey, alcoholic drinks - Panama, soft drinks - Thailand, mobile phones - Hong Kong. (EU customs detain over 100 million fake goods at EU borders)

Can ECCs help you as well?

In 2011, over 70 000 consumers received free advice and assistence from the European Consumer Centres Network.

The centres, established in every EU country (plus Norway and Iceland), offer advice before purchasing something cross-border and assistance in case something goes wrong. 

In 2011, the majority (ca. 54%) of the cases handled by ECCs was either solved directly (ca. 41%) or handled to other organisations (ca. 13%). When a solution could not be reached, this was largely due to lack of cooperation on the side of businesses, but also, in increased proportion since the previous year, some of the claims were simply found to be... unfounded. If you are experiencing problems, then, it might be definitely worth a try.

More facts and contacts (including where to find ECCs in the various countries) can be found in the easy-to-read report brochure.

Special consumer jurisdiction not only for contracts concluded online: AG's opinion in CJEU case C-190/11 (Mühlleitner)

24 May 2012: AG's Cruz Villalón opinion in the CJEU case C-190/11 (Mühlleitner)

Some time ago we discussed two CJEU cases Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof (ECJ instructs businesses what NOT to publish on their website to keep operations domestic only...) in which matters of international private law that influence consumer protection were discussed. In the case Mühlleitner, once again a special jurisdiction in consumer cases is being discussed.

Daniela Mühlleitner lives in Austria and was looking online for a second-hand car for her private use. She filled in a form with the characteristics of a car she wanted on the website: www.mobile.de and one particular link to an offer caught her interest. Upon clicking on that link, she was re-directed to a website of Ahmad Yusufi and Wadat Yusufi (the defendants). She contacted them by phone, was informed that the car chosen by her was no longer available but they had similar ones to offer. She agreed to receive an email with more information about available cars including photos. Moreover, she indicated to the sellers that she lived in Austria and it was not considered to be an obstacle in concluding a sales contract. Some time later she went to Germany and concluded the sale contract with the defendants. Soon afterwards, upon her return to Austria with the car, she discovered defects in it. Since she could no longer get in touch with the sellers, she started legal proceedings to claim re-payment of the sale price and damages. The Austrian courts did not believe they had jurisdiction over these proceedings.

As a reminder, article 15 (1) (c) of the Regulation 44/2001 declares that the courts of consumer's country of domicile could have jurisdiction if the seller conducted his activity in this country or directed his activities to this country. In case, Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof the CJEU indicated certain factors that should be taken into account in order to determine whether sellers directed their activity to consumers from other Member States.

The question in Mühlleitner case was whether article 15 (1) (c) of the Regulation should be applied in this case, i.e. whether it applies only in situations of contracts concluded at a distance.

The AG Cruz Villalón argues that the applicability of this article is not limited only to contracts concluded at a distance. (Par.12) Firstly, historical arguments are being raised - previously binding Treaty of 1968 contained a similar provision whose application was neither limited to distance contracts. (Par. 15) Moreover, official statements of the Council and the Commission as well as previous judgments of the CJEU (e.g., Ilsinger) determine that article 15 refers to a number of sales methods, among others also distance sales contracts concluded online. (Par. 20) Therefore, it is clear that the Regulation did not aim at limiting a number of consumer contracts to which article 15 and a special jurisidiction in consumer cases would apply. (Par. 21)