CELEX: C2005/057/03
Language: en
Date: 2005-03-05 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-27/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Petra Engler v Janus Versand GmbH (Brussels Convention — Request for the interpretation of Article 5(1) and (3) and Article 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 ostensibly won — Classification — Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, or by Article 5(1) or in matters of tort, delict or quasi-delict by Article 5(3) — Conditions)

5.3.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 57/2
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   
   (Second Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case C-27/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Petra Engler v Janus Versand GmbH (1)
   
   (Brussels Convention - Request for the interpretation of Article 5(1) and (3) and Article 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 ostensibly won - Classification - Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, or by Article 5(1) or in matters of tort, delict or quasi-delict by Article 5(3) - Conditions)
   (2005/C 57/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-27/02: reference to the Court 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 Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria), made by decision 14 January 2002, registered at the Court 31 January 2002, in the proceedings between Petra Engler and Janus Versand GmbH – the Court (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it ruled:
   The rules of jurisdiction of 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 in the following way:
   
               —
            
            
               legal proceedings by which a consumer seeks an order, under the law of the Contracting State in which he is domiciled, that a mail order company established in another Contracting State award a prize ostensibly won by him is contractual in nature for the purpose of Article 5(1) of that convention, provided that, first, that company, with the intention of inducing the consumer to enter a contract, addresses to him in person a letter of such a kind as to give the impression that a prize will be awarded to him if he returns the ‘payment notice’ attached to the letter and, second, he accepts the conditions laid down by the vendor and does in fact claim payment of the prize announced;
            
         
               —
            
            
               on the other hand, even though the letter also contains a catalogue advertising goods for that company and a request for a ‘trial without obligation’, the fact that the award of the prize does not depend on an order for goods and that the consumer has not, in fact, placed such an order has no bearing on that interpretation.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 109 of 04.05.2002.