Case C‑190/11

Daniela Mühlleitner

v

Ahmad Yusufi and Wadat Yusufi

(Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Oberster Gerichtshof)

(Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 15(1)(c) — Possible limitation of that jurisdiction to distance contracts)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 6 September 2012

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Scope of Article 15(1)(c) of the regulation — No limitation to distance contracts only

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 15(1)(c))

Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not requiring the contract between the consumer and the trader to be concluded at a distance.

First, that provision does not expressly make its application conditional on the fact that the contracts falling within its scope have been concluded at a distance. Secondly, as regards a teleological interpretation of the provision, the addition of a condition concerning the conclusion of consumer contracts at a distance would run counter to the objective of that provision, in particular the objective of protecting consumers as the weaker parties to the contract. Thirdly, the essential condition to which the application of Article 15(1)(c) of the regulation is subject is that relating to a commercial or professional activity directed to the State of the consumer’s domicile. In that respect, both the establishment of contact at a distance and the reservation of goods or services at a distance, or a fortiori the conclusion of a consumer contract at a distance, are indications that the contract is connected with such an activity.

(see para. 35, 42, 44-45, operative part)