Source: http://recent-ecl.blogspot.nl/2014/09/
Timestamp: 2018-05-27 07:50:24
Document Index: 669548781

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

Recent developments in European Consumer Law: September 2014
Posted by Chantal Mak at 13:14 No comments: Links to this post
New additions have been added to the virtual symposium on Ben-Shahar's and Schneider's book on mandatory disclosure. They include contributions by:
VII. Nancy Kim
VIII. Florencia Marotta-Wurgler
IX. Daniel Schwarcz
X. Jeff Sovern
XI.A David Vladeck
Posted by Chantal Mak at 12:07 No comments: Links to this post
Labels: book, consumer behavior, consumer information, duties to inform, mandatory information disclosure
Online 'free' newspapers also subject to national libel and defamation rules - CJEU in Papasavvas and Others (C-291/13)
11 September 2014: CJEU judgment in case Papasavvas and Others (C-291/13)
Over a week ago the CJEU issued an important judgment in this case concerning interpretation of the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC). While e-Commerce Directive is not per se a consumer protection measure, its provisions regulating the legal aspects of electronic commerce have a significant impact on European consumers, as well.
In this case from Cyprus Mr Papasavvas claimed damages against a newspaper company for what he considered to be defamation through articles published in the daily newspaper, which were published online on two websites. One of the questions raised was whether the e-Commerce Directive should apply at all in this case, since the websites of the newspaper were free for Mr Papasavvas to access and peruse and they only generated income from the advertisements placed on them. The question was whether the Directive should only apply to such 'information society services' that have been provided against a remuneration from the recipient? The positive answer to this question would significantly lower the level of protection granted online to internet users since many websites nowadays earn their money through advertisements rather than through financial contributors of their readers. The CJEU confirms that the 'service' does not need to be paid by the person for whom it is performed (Par. 28-30) to fall under the scope of the e-Commerce Directive, even if the definition refers to a service 'normally provided for remuneration' (Par. 27). It is sufficient that this remuneration is being paid by someone else than the recipient.
This broader scope of application could allow the online newspaper to rely on Articles 12 and 14 of the Directive in order to escape liability for the posted content (incl. defamation) if it could prove that it was 'merely' a 'conduit'. In this case the online newspaper could not be qualified as such. For these articles to apply the service provider would have to have no knowledge or control over the information that was transmitted or stored, which was not the case here. (Par. 40) (this and following articles refer also to the Google France case)
The e-Commerce Directive allows for the Member States to keep on applying their rules on civil liability (incl. for defamation) to information society service providers, as long as this does not restrict the freedom to provide them from another MS. (Par. 33-34) Since in the given case the services originated in Cyprus, the rules on civil liability for defamation could be applicable.
However, if the Cyprus did not implement the provisions of the Directive in time its provisions may not be directly invoked by the parties. The Directive does not have a direct horizontal effect, which means that the national service providers could only rely on the national provisions implementing it and not on the rights granted to them by the Directive itself. Failing the timely interpretation, the national court is obliged to the consistent interpretation of the national law with the EU law. (Par. 54-56)
Labels: cjeu, e-commerce, intellectual property, internet, media, services
More than you wanted to know - a virtual symposium
On ContractsProf Blog, a virtual symposium is currently taking place on the book 'More than you wanted to know' by Omri Ben-Shahar and Carl E. Schneider.
The book, of which we posted a summary earlier, addresses the problem of lacking effectiveness and potential harmfulness of mandatory disclosure rules in consumer contract law.
Contributions to the virtual debate so far include an introduction of the authors and blog posts by:
I. Aditi Bagchi
II. Steven Burton
III. Ryan Calo
IV. Robert Hillman
V. Ethan Leib
VI. Lauren Willis
Posted by Chantal Mak at 11:48 No comments: Links to this post
The International Association of Consumer Law has a new website - http://www.iacl.net.au/. Even though the old one is still functional it has stopped being updated some time ago so I refer everyone to the new one.
Labels: IACL
Posted by Candida Leone at 13:43 No comments: Links to this post
Posted by Eva Maria Tscherner at 17:58 2 comments: Links to this post
No delivery of EU order for payment = invalidity grounds - CJEU in joined cases eco cosmetics (C-119-121/13)
4 September 2014: CJEU judgment in joined cases eco cosmetics (C-119/13), Raiffeisenbank St Georgen (C-120/13) and Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle (C-121/13)
We have previously discussed the opinion of AG Bot in these cases on our blog (see You have been served!...). The three German cases concerned the possibility (or lack of) for a consumer to question the fact of the delivery of the order for payment after it has already been pronounced enforceable. The AG Bot argued that due to the specific character of the claims raised in this procedure of Regulation No 1896/2006 (pertaining non-contested monetary claims) and extraordinary form thereof (facilitating fast reimbursements), the defendant has to be given a real possibility of defence, which means ensuring he was properly and timely served with the order for payment. The CJEU agrees with the AG Bot that the balance between the defendant's right to defence and the claimant's interest in speedy and efficient procedure need to be observed. (Par. 37) If the defendant is not properly informed of the existence and basis of the EU order for payment issued against him, obviously he may not have all the necessary information to oppose it. (Par. 41) It has to, therefore, be established that if the defendant is not (or improperly) served the order for payment, the period for contesting the claim of Article 16 (2) never starts running, which means that even if the status of enforceability was given to the order, it may need to be invalidated. (Par. 43 and 48) Other remedies will need to be determined by national laws. (Par. 46-47) Practically speaking, if the order for payment is delivered to the defendant's address, the defendant does not contest it, so that it becomes enforceable pursuant to Article 18, the defendant may still refuse to pay and instead try to claim in front of the national court that the delivery of the order never took place. (Par. 49)
Posted by Eva Maria Tscherner at 19:03 No comments: Links to this post
Good video on dangers to consumers' privacy, on how data is gathered, trafficked and how we remain oblivious to it. See CBS' "60 Minutes - The Data Brokers" on YouTube or here.
Posted by J.A. (Joasia) Luzak at 12:05 1 comment: Links to this post