The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified some important aspects of Directive 2011/83/EC on consumer rights in a recent judgment in a case in which it brought together several related questions.
The CJEU ruled that a service contract concluded between a consumer and a trader by means of distance communication is not a “distance contract” within the meaning of the law if, prior to its conclusion, there was a face-to-face negotiation during which the consumer received all the necessary information and had the opportunity to ask questions about the contract in order to remove any uncertainty as to its content.
The European Court also ruled that a service contract concluded between a consumer and a trader cannot be regarded as an “off-premises contract” within the meaning of the law if, at the initial stage of the contract, the consumer went to the business premises of an intermediary acting in the name of or on behalf of the trader, even if the intermediary operates in a different sector from that of the trader. However, this is only the case if the average consumer, who is well informed and observant, could have expected to be approached by the intermediary with an offer with a view to negotiating and concluding a service contract with the trader, and if he could have easily understood that the intermediary was acting on behalf of the trader.
The CJEU also clarified that a credit agreement must specify the essential information on the out-of-court complaint or other redress procedures available to the consumer, their cost, the fact that they must be submitted in writing or by electronic means, the physical or electronic address to which they must be sent, and any other formal conditions imposed. In this respect, a mere reference in the credit agreement to a procedure available on request or on the internet is not sufficient to inform the consumer.
