Case C-500/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — AU v Reliantco Investments LTD, Reliantco Investments LTD Limassol Sucursala Bucureşti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Markets in financial instruments — Directive 2004/39/EC — Meanings of ‘retail client’ and ‘consumer’ — Conditions for relying on the status of consumer — Determining jurisdiction to hear the request)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer, financial instrument, financial services, independent retailer, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, liability, private international law, provision of services, unfair terms of contract








C_2020222EN.01000902.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/9






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — AU v Reliantco Investments LTD, Reliantco Investments LTD Limassol Sucursala Bucureşti
(Case C-500/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Markets in financial instruments - Directive 2004/39/EC - Meanings of ‘retail client’ and ‘consumer’ - Conditions for relying on the status of consumer - Determining jurisdiction to hear the request)
(2020/C 222/09)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AU

Defendants: Reliantco Investments LTD, Reliantco Investments LTD Limassol Sucursala Bucureşti

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who, under a contract such as a financial contract for differences concluded with a finance company, carries out transactions through that company may be classified as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision if the conclusion of that contract does not fall within the scope of that person’s professional activity, which it is for the national court to ascertain. For the purposes of that classification, first, factors such as the fact that that person carried out a high volume of transactions within a relatively short period or that he or she invested significant sums in those transactions are, as such, in principle irrelevant, and secondly, the fact that that same person is a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) point 12 of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC is, as such, in principle irrelevant;










2.


Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining the courts having jurisdiction, an action in tort brought by a consumer comes under Chapter II, Section 4, of that regulation if it is indissociably linked to a contract actually concluded between that consumer and the seller or supplier, which is a matter for the national court to verify.






(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.