...
首页> 外文期刊>International and Comparative Law Quarterly >CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - 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
【24h】

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - 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

机译:当前的国际私法发展动态-澄清布鲁塞尔一世的“第15条的哲学”法规:C-585 / 08彼得·帕默尔诉里德瑞·卡尔·史鲁特有限公司和C-144 / 09阿尔彭霍夫酒店诉奥利弗·海勒

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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-a-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' 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.' The connecting factors in article 15(1)(c) apply in two situations. 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?
机译:在案例C-585 / 08 Peter Pammer诉Reedere Karl Schluter GmbH&Co和C-144 / 09 Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH诉Oliver Heller案中,欧洲法院认为EC 44/2001条例第15(1)(c)条适用(布鲁塞尔一世)与在其他成员国居住的消费者进行商业交流时使用网站。布鲁塞尔一世第15条包含一些特殊规则,这些规则确定了涉及“受保护的”消费者合同的争议的管辖权。第15条第1款(a)项和第(b)项分别适用于合同受分期付款信贷安排约束或合同用于为货物销售融资的贷款的情况。这两个最近的案件涉及第15条第1款(c)项,该条本身以前被委员会认为是“第15条的哲学”。第15条第(1)款(c)项的联系因素适用于两种情况。首先是卖方由于在消费者住所成员国中进行的商业活动而订立合同。当企业将其专业或商业活动“定向”到消费者住所的成员国,并且由于这些活动而订立合同时,则适用替代方法。第15条第(2)款(当前)还规定,在与消费者有合同的成员国中设有分支机构或机构的非欧盟被告公司,可被视为在该成员国为住所。这些案例很重要,因为这是第一次引用欧洲法院来专门考虑和解释企业网站应在多大程度上解释为将“商业活动”导向其他成员国的消费者。本质上,当卖方或其代理人使用网站以促进与位于成员国的消费者之间的合同活动时,应将哪种活动解释为直接活动?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号