- CJEU—European enforcement orders and protection of consumers (Vapenik v Thurner)
- Practical implications
- How should art 6(1)(d) be interpreted?
- Court details
DR analysis: The CJEU has held that the protection of consumers, whereby they must be sued in the courts of their domiciled Member State, only applies if there is an imbalance in the relationship of the contracting parties. As such, where a creditor acting within their ‘trade or profession’ had dealings with a debtor who was an unsophisticated consumer, any resulting proceedings in relation to the debt must be brought in the Member State of the debtor. However, as in this case, where both parties are ‘consumers’ or private individuals, there is no imbalance or need for protection. Proceedings can be brought in the Member State where the contract took place and any resulting judgment can be certified as a European Enforcement Order (EEO) against the debtor in their Member State.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial