Analysis

on ECJ
Case C-
190/11
International Consumer
Protection
Merits
1. Parties in the case:
a. Plaintiff → Daniela Mühlleitner (Austria) -
Buyer
b. Defendant → Ahmad Yusufi , Wadat Yusufi/
Autohaus (German) - Seller
2. Goods Involved: Vehicle with hidden defects
3. The reason this case arise: Yusufis refused to
repair Ms. Mühlleitner defect vehicle that she
bought from Yusufis
4. Establishment of Contract : Website of autohaus

Then , Ms. Mühlleitner brought proceedings in the

court of her place of domicile , Landesgericht Wels,
Austria, based on article 15 (1) (c) Brussels I Regulation.
Judge Decision
Court: European Court of Justice, Fourth Chamber

Reference for a preliminary ruling of the Obserter Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria)
- Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters
- Jurisdiction over consumer contracts
this reference concerns the interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation

The Obester Gerichtshof asks the Court of Justice whether, for it to be possible to sue in the national
courts, the contract between the consumer and the trader must also be concluded at a distance.

The Court of Justice answers “Article 15 (1)(c) of Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction and 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.”
Rationale of the Judge
● Derogation from general rule of jurisdictions and rule of special
jurisdiction of contracts.
○ necessary to be interpreted strictly
○ must be interpreted independently
● Aim of Article 15(1) : protect consumers
○ protection is not absolute
● Does not prohibit its application if contract concluded in a distance
● There is no need to ascertain whether the commercial activities of Mr A.
Yusufi and Mr W. Yusufi were directed to Austria, since the national court
has already regarded the condition of ‘same place and same protection of
consumers’ as satisfied.
Cont’d
● Pursuant to Article 15(1)(c), specific conditions are satisfied.
1. The trader pursues commercial or professional activities in the
Member State of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such
activities to that Member State or to several States including that
Member State and,
2. The contract at issue falls within the scope of such activities.
Is there anything not in line with
Private International Law
Its not inline with Private International Law because
in this case there is a connector lex loci contractus =
the contract concluded in website autohaus which is
Plaintiff operate in Austria , so the lex loci
contractus must be Austria , but judge stated that
they reject it based on the contract that concluded
in distance can’t use article 15 (1) (c) because ECJ use
teleological interpretation of article 15 (1)(c) that
stated the addition of a condition concerning the
consumer contracts at a distance would run counter
to the objective of that provision in its new, less
restrictive formulation, especially the objective of