CELEX: 62008CA0585
Language: en
Date: 2010-12-07 00:00:00
Title: Joined Cases C-585/08 and C-144/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG (C-585/08) and Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH v Oliver Heller (C-144/09) (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 15(1)(c) and (3) — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Contract for a voyage by freighter — Concept of ‘package travel’ — Contract for a hotel stay — Presentation of the voyage and the hotel on a website — Concept of activity ‘directed to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile — Criteria — Accessibility of the website)

19.2.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 55/4
            
         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG (C-585/08) and Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH v Oliver Heller (C-144/09)
   (Joined Cases C-585/08 and C-144/09) (1)
   
   (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 15(1)(c) and (3) - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Contract for a voyage by freighter - Concept of ‘package travel’ - Contract for a hotel stay - Presentation of the voyage and the hotel on a website - Concept of activity ‘directed to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile - Criteria - Accessibility of the website)
   2011/C 55/06
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Oberster Gerichtshof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Peter Pammer (C-585/08), Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH (C-144/09)
   
      Defendants: Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG (C-585/08), Oliver Heller (C-144/09)
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichstshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Minimum characteristics required of an internet site in order for the activities advertised on that site to be capable of being regarded as activities ‘directed’ to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               A contract concerning a voyage by freighter, such as that at issue in the main proceedings in Case C-585/08, is a contract of transport which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation within the meaning of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In order to determine whether a trader whose activity is presented on its website or on that of an intermediary can be considered to be ‘directing’ its activity to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, within the meaning of Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001, it should be ascertained whether, before the conclusion of any contract with the consumer, it is apparent from those websites and the trader’s overall activity that the trader was envisaging doing business with consumers domiciled in one or more Member States, including the Member State of that consumer’s domicile, in the sense that it was minded to conclude a contract with them.
               The following matters, the list of which is not exhaustive, are capable of constituting evidence from which it may be concluded that the trader’s activity is directed to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, namely the international nature of the activity, mention of itineraries from other Member States for going to the place where the trader is established, use of a language or a currency other than the language or currency generally used in the Member State in which the trader is established with the possibility of making and confirming the reservation in that other language, mention of telephone numbers with an international code, outlay of expenditure on an internet referencing service in order to facilitate access to the trader’s site or that of its intermediary by consumers domiciled in other Member States, use of a top-level domain name other than that of the Member State in which the trader is established, and mention of an international clientele composed of customers domiciled in various Member States. It is for the national courts to ascertain whether such evidence exists.
               On the other hand, the mere accessibility of the trader’s or the intermediary’s website in the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled is insufficient. The same is true of mention of an email address and of other contact details, or of use of a language or a currency which are the language and/or currency generally used in the Member State in which the trader is established.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009
   
   
      OJ C 153, 4.7.2009