Results found: 2

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

Harmonisation tendencies in European Consumer Law

100%

Kunkiel-Kryńska A.

Studia Prawnicze

2012

issue 2 (191)

67-102

The aim of this article is to examine the ongoing process of harmonisation of consumer law in the European Union and a trend away from minimum harmonisation in consumer law towards full (complete, maximum) harmonisation. First of all, two important observations need to be made regarding a general concept of harmonisation in the EU and its main instruments i.e. directives regulated by Article 288 of the Treaty. Harmonisation of law is the finishing touch for the completion of the internal market of the EU after the directly applicable provisions of the Treaty regulating the four freedoms have done their work. Directives are the most important legislative instrument alongside regulations. They are based on different harmonisation methods e.g. minimum or full harmonisation. Theirs purpose is to reconcile the dual objectives: securing the necessary uniformity of EU law and respecting the diversity of national legal orders, traditions and structures. A directive is binding on the Member States as regards the objective to be achieved. The result is generally a two-stage law-making process, including implementation at the national level. It is of prime importance that in the field of consumer protection, the EU followed for a long time a minimum harmonisation approach and directives were based on this particular method of harmonisation. Over the last years, the EU policy on consumer protection has shifted from minimum to full harmonisation. Whereas minimum harmonisation allows Member States to adopt more protective rules, full harmonisation does not allow Member States to deviate from directives at all. This way, full harmonisation should guarantee that one uniform set of rules applies in the whole EU. In theory, this should contribute to legal certainty for both consumers and businesses. However, in practice, this is undoubtedly controversial. In light of the above, it should be stressed that the EU legislator wants to create a common consumer law for Europe. Admittedly the superficial appeal of full harmonisation from an internal market perspective is clear. One set of rules for traders, which grants access to the entire internal market of 27 states, is obviously appealing. However, this goal is illusory. Certain problems arise, to name a few: the EU's competence to legislate in the field of consumer policy or concrete evidence that full harmonisation is required to deliver the real internal market. What is more, while in some areas the need for full harmonisation is self-evident, for example, as regards product specifications, it is harder to see why private law rules – including consumer law - need to be fully harmonised. In the field of private law there is a much stronger tendency towards flexible thinking and a search for adaptability. Therefore it is hard to justify a full harmonisation approach to flexible and consistent national contract law orders. Last but not least, full harmonisation directives give rise to serious implementation problems at the national level, both in terms of transposition and applying transposition measures by national authorities, mainly courts. National courts – as European courts – ensure the correct application and observance of EU law. Taking the above into consideration, there is a tension between the aim of full harmonisation (uniformity) and interpretation of various general (undefined concepts) used in full harmonisation directives. In particular, there is a risk of divergent national interpretations. To sum up, over the last years the EU consumer protection policy has shifted from minimum harmonisation towards full harmonisation, which is supposed to reduce barriers in the internal market. However, it should be pointed out that there are some objection to the restrictive full harmonisation approach. Legal doctrine indicates certain problems i.e. full harmonisation directives give rise to serious implementation problems at the national level and cause risk of decomposition of national legal orders. Therefore the European Commission is now advocating a milder approach based on “targeted” full harmonisation - more selective, practical, less disturbing to the national legal orders.

Wybór prawa jako klauzula abuzywna w umowach konsumenckich zawieranych przez Internet

63%

Jagielska M., Kunkiel-Kryńska A.

internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny

2016

vol. 5

issue 3

29-38

W umowach konsumenckich zawieranych przez Internet (z elementem międzynarodowym) zwiększa się ryzyko trudności z ustaleniem prawa właściwego, a w razie sporu na tle umowy z przedsiębiorcą zagranicznym, konsument może napotkać także trudności natury proceduralnej. Ponadto, może okazać się, że zastosowane prawo nie zapewnia konsumentowi takiej ochrony, jaką miałby w miejscu swojego zwykłego pobytu. Problematyka ta była przedmiotem rozważań Sądu Najwyższego, który w wyroku z dnia 17 września 2014 r., (Sygn. akt I CSK 555/13), orzekł, że zamieszczenie we wzorcu umowy konsumenckiej postanowienia przewidującego zastosowanie prawa obcego dla konsumenta, a właściwego dla twórcy wzorca, stanowi klauzulę niedozwoloną w rozumieniu art. 3851 § 1 k.c. Niniejszy wyrok skłania do pytania: czy w relacjach B2C (business to consumer) w praktyce dochodzi do wyłączenia możliwości wyboru prawa.

An increased risk exists now related to the correct determination of the applicable law in consumer contracts (with an international aspect) concluded online. In case of a dispute regarding contracts between a consumer and a foreign entrepreneur, the consumer may face procedural difficulties. It is also possible that the law which has been applied, on the basis of the ‘choice of law’ clause, does not provide the type of protection which the consumer may have in his own place of residence. The Polish Supreme Court Such analysed this issue in a judgment dated 17 September 2014 (I CSK 555/13). The Court ruled therein that a clause in standard consumer contracts predetermining the application of law foreign to the consumer, but ‘domestic’ to the entrepreneur, should be considered an unfair contractual provision in light of Article 385(1) § 1 of the Polish Civil Code. The above mentioned ruling leads to the question if, in practice, the ‘choice of law’ clause is thus excluded in consumer transactions (B2C).

Refine search results

1 Studia Prawnicze

1 internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny

2 Kunkiel-Kryńska A.

1 Jagielska M.

1 2016

1 2012

Search results

Harmonisation tendencies in European Consumer Law

Wybór prawa jako klauzula abuzywna w umowach konsumenckich zawieranych przez Internet