# C_2005057EN.01000102.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 January 2005

in Case C-464/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Johann Gruber v Bay Wa AG (1)

1

(Brussels Convention - Article 13, first paragraph - Conditions for application - Definition of ‘consumer contract’ - Purchase of tiles by a farmer for roofing a farm building used partly for private and partly for business purposes)

(2005/C 57/02)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-464/01: reference for a preliminary ruling under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 8 November 2001, received at the Court on 4 December 2001, in the proceedings between Johann Gruber and Bay Wa AG – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it has ruled:

The rules of jurisdiction laid down by the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as follows:

| — | a person who concludes a contract for goods intended for purposes which are in part within and in part outside his trade or profession may not rely on the special rules of jurisdiction laid down in Articles 13 to 15 of the Convention, unless the trade or professional purpose is so limited as to be negligible in the overall context of the supply, the fact that the private element is predominant being irrelevant in that respect; |
| --- | --- |

—

a person who concludes a contract for goods intended for purposes which are in part within and in part outside his trade or profession may not rely on the special rules of jurisdiction laid down in Articles 13 to 15 of the Convention, unless the trade or professional purpose is so limited as to be negligible in the overall context of the supply, the fact that the private element is predominant being irrelevant in that respect;

| — | it is for the court seised to decide whether the contract at issue was concluded in order to satisfy, to a non-negligible extent, needs of the business of the person concerned or whether, on the contrary, the trade or professional purpose was negligible; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is for the court seised to decide whether the contract at issue was concluded in order to satisfy, to a non-negligible extent, needs of the business of the person concerned or whether, on the contrary, the trade or professional purpose was negligible;

| — | to that end, that court must take account of all the relevant factual evidence objectively contained in the file. On the other hand, it must not take account of facts or circumstances of which the other party to the contract may have been aware when the contract was concluded, unless the person who claims the capacity of consumer behaved in such a way as to give the other party to the contract the legitimate impression that he was acting for the purposes of his business. |
| --- | --- |

—

to that end, that court must take account of all the relevant factual evidence objectively contained in the file. On the other hand, it must not take account of facts or circumstances of which the other party to the contract may have been aware when the contract was concluded, unless the person who claims the capacity of consumer behaved in such a way as to give the other party to the contract the legitimate impression that he was acting for the purposes of his business.

---

(1)  OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.

1

---