# C_2019206EN.01001402.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Aqua Med sp. z o.o. v Irena Skóra

(Case C-266/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 1(2) - Scope of the directive - Contractual term conferring territorial jurisdiction on the court determined pursuant to the general rules - Article 6(1) - Review of unfairness of the court’s own motion - Article 7(1) - Obligations and powers of the national court)

(2019/C 206/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aqua Med sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Irena Skóra

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which refers to the national law applicable so far as concerns the determination of jurisdiction to hear disputes between the parties to the contract, does not fall outside the scope of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which refers to the national law applicable so far as concerns the determination of jurisdiction to hear disputes between the parties to the contract, does not fall outside the scope of that directive.

| 2. | Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding procedural rules, to which a contractual term refers, which allow the seller or supplier to choose, in the event of an action for alleged non-performance of a contract by the consumer, between the court which has jurisdiction in the place where the defendant is domiciled and that which has jurisdiction in the place of performance of the contract, unless the choice of place of performance of the contract gives rise, for the consumer, to procedural conditions which are such as to restrict excessively the right to an effective remedy conferred on him by the European Union legal order, which is a matter for the national court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding procedural rules, to which a contractual term refers, which allow the seller or supplier to choose, in the event of an action for alleged non-performance of a contract by the consumer, between the court which has jurisdiction in the place where the defendant is domiciled and that which has jurisdiction in the place of performance of the contract, unless the choice of place of performance of the contract gives rise, for the consumer, to procedural conditions which are such as to restrict excessively the right to an effective remedy conferred on him by the European Union legal order, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---