Choice of Law in Consumer Contracts in the Context of the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sarl
Abstract
This article analyzes the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sarl, specifically the court's conclusion that a choice of law clause may be an unfair term if a trader does not inform consumers about Art. 6(2) Rome I Regulation. This provision guarantees consumers the standard of protection resulting from mandatory rules of the law of the State of their habitual residence.
The author focuses on three sub-questions: application of Council Directive 93/13/EEC to choice of law clauses, traders' obligation to inform consumers about effects of Art. 6(2) Rome I Regulation and the effects of Art. 6(2) Rome I Regulation. In particular, the author expresses her disagreement with creation of the information obligation and with the interpretation of Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation, which denies the preferential law approach.
The article shows that the problem of the judgment consists to a great extent in a lack of reasoning, and as a result it raises more questions than it answers.