Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 11 July 2002 in Case C-96/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Rudolf Gabriel (Brussels Convention — Request for interpretation of Articles 5(1) and (3) and 13, first paragraph, point 3 — Entitlement of a consumer to whom misleading advertising has been sent to seek payment, in judicial proceedings, of the prize which he has apparently won — Classification — Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 13, first paragraph, point 3 — Conditions)
Date: 2002-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, advertising, consumer protection, contract, distance selling, interpretation of the law

12.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 247/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

11 July 2002

in Case C-96/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Rudolf Gabriel (1)

(Brussels Convention — Request for interpretation of
Articles 5(1) and (3) and 13, first paragraph, point 3 —
Entitlement of a consumer to whom misleading advertising
has been sent to seek payment, in judicial proceedings, of the
prize which he has apparently won — Classification —
Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 13, first
paragraph, point 3 — Conditions)

(2002/C 247/01)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Austria)

In Case C-96/00: Reference to the Court pursuant to the
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdic-
tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-
for a
cial Matters by the Oberster Gerichtshof
preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought before that
court by Rudolf Gabriel, on the interpretation of Articles 5(1)
and (3) and 13, first paragraph, point 3, of the abovementioned
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), 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 (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77), by the Convention
of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on
the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese

Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), 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
(OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in which
it has ruled:

The jurisdiction rules set out in 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, are
to be construed as meaning that judicial proceedings by which a
consumer seeks an order, in the Contracting State in which he is
domiciled and pursuant to that State’s legislation, requiring a mail-
order company established in another Contracting State to pay him a
financial benefit in circumstances where that company had sent to
that consumer in person a letter likely to create the impression that a
prize would be awarded to him on condition that he ordered goods to
a specified amount, and where that consumer actually placed such an
order in the State of his domicile without, however, obtaining
payment of that financial benefit, are contractual in nature in the
sense contemplated in Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, of that
Convention.

(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.