Legal News

CJEU considers Brussels I consumer provisions and related contracts (Rudiger Hobohm v Benedikt Kampik and others)

Published on: 06 January 2016
Published by: LexisPSL
  • CJEU considers Brussels I consumer provisions and related contracts (Rudiger Hobohm v Benedikt Kampik and others)
  • Practical implications
  • Facts
  • Can a subsequent agreement be linked to a previously concluded and performed contract such that it falls within art 15(1)(c)?
  • What was the basis for the CJEU's decision?
  • Court details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held that where a contract falls within the consumer provisions in article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I), a subsequent contract which does not fall directly within the provisions, but which is entered into to fulfill the economic objective of the first contract, will be considered as fulfilling the requirement such that the consumer may bring proceedings in the Member State of their own domicile. The judgment extends the protection offered to consumers while maintaining the jurisdictional certainty requirement which underpins the regulation. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents