scholarly journals A propósito de la STJUE de 8 de octubre de 2020 (caso EU contra PE Digital GmbH): suministro de servicios digitales y derecho de desistimiento

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 14-30
Author(s):  
Rosa Barceló Compte
Keyword(s):  
Digital Content ◽  
Digital Services ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal

The commentary that is addressed analyzes the judgment of the CJEU of 8 October 2020 (Case EU v. PE Digital GmbH) which examines several preliminary questions relating to the exercise of the right of withdrawal on a contract for the provision of digital services concluded at a distance. Thus, the work affects the question relating to the nature of the contract for the supply of digital content and digital services and analyzes whether one of the performances of the contractual object can be considered as digital content according to the definition provided by Directive 2019/770 of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services. The following pages also focus on the consequence that the legal nature of the contract and of one of its performances has on the exercise of the consumer's right of withdrawal provided for in Directive 2011/83 on consumer rights.

Formulation of rights and European legal discourse: any theory behind it?

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Ioriatti Ferrari
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Actual Structure ◽  
Multilingual Communication ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Official Languages ◽  
Council Regulation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEver since the very beginning of the European Economic Community, the EU has regulated European linguistic diversity through a policy of multilingualism (Art. 217 of the E.C. Treaty and Council Regulation No 1 April 15, 1958). Within this policy, the legislator introduced the right of EU citizens to communicate with the EU institutions in each one of the official languages. The possibility of multilingual communication with the EU institutions is not only a practical solution, but a real “core” right, recognized even in the Lisbon Treaty. In this framework, it is worth providing practical solutions as well as considering whether or not, the European Union is also favoring the enactment of rights at the European level, by formulating, enforcing and even communicating the same rule to all EU citizens, with the aid of a multilingual drafting. The EU legal terminology providing rights comes into being through specific mechanisms of lexical creation, which chiefly consist of coining semantic neologisms. Moreover, all legal texts must be written in accordance with EU drafting guidelines, prescribing that “rules have to be drafted bearing in mind their translation in all the official languages”. The consequence of these drafting techniques is that multilingualism influences not only the translation, but the actual structure and content of the rule: very often the result of this praxis is a pragmatic, detailed, concrete regulation of legal instruments, rather than a system of rights. A clear example is given by the directives on consumer protection – nowadays “Directive on Consumer Rights” – and particularly the well known “right of withdrawal”; a consumer opportunity to withdraw from a contract within seven (now fourteen) days is undeniably a proper “right”. However, the regulation provided in the directives is more focused on the procedure of withdrawal (the instrument) than on the effect of the withdrawal from the contract (the right). In general, the multilingual drafting of EU norms – and consequently of EU

scholarly journals An Analysis of the “Right of Termination”, “Right of Cancellation” and “Right of Withdrawal” in off-Premises and Distance Contracts According to EU Directives

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-133
Author(s):  
Patrizia Giampieri
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
European Directives ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Do So

Abstract Several are the European Directives dedicated to e-commerce, focussing on consumer rights, the distance marketing of consumer financial services and the protection of consumers indistance contracts.In contract law, the terms “termination”, “withdrawal”and “cancellation”have peculiar and distinct meaning. Nonetheless, they tend to be misused and applied interchangeably. This article will shed light on these relevant terms in thelight of EU Directives on the protection of consumer rights in off-premises and distance contracts.To do so, it will first present instances in which the meaningand use of these terms is either clear-cut or somehow blurred. By analysing word usage and meaning in context, it will explore how EU Directives, and EU drafters in general, made(un)ambiguous distinctions. Then, it will investigate whether English-speaking drafters (such as those of the pre-Brexit UK, Ireland and Malta) made a consistent use ofsuch terms. Finally, this paper will explore whether online conditions of sale writtenin English by non-English speaking sellers or traders (such as Italian and Polish) also make a consistent use of the terms.The paper findings highlight that the use andlegal purpose of these terms in European Directives have not been particularly consistent over the years. Furthermore, Member States’system-specificity has weighed on the meaning, application and scope of the terms. On the other hand, at EU level the absence of a unique legal system of reference and the challenges of harmonization may have created false equivalences.

Sale of goods made to the consumer’s specifications at a trade fair: ab initio no right of withdrawal: Case C-529/19 Möbel Kraft, EU:C:2020:846

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2199601
Author(s):  
Reinhard Steennot
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Ab Initio ◽  
Trade Fair ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal

Within the European Union, consumers concluding contracts with traders either at a distance or outside the traders’ premises are generally entitled to withdraw from the contract. However, in certain cases, enumerated in article 16 of the Consumer Rights Directive, the right of withdrawal does not apply. One of the exceptions to the right of withdrawal concerns contracts relating to the supply of goods that are made to the consumer’s specifications or that are clearly personalized. In Möbel Kraft, the ECJ decided that a trader may rely on this exception from the outset and not only after he has begun to produce the goods.

ON CONSTRUCT OF THE RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION IN RESPECT OF PARTICIPATORY INTEREST (SHARES)

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 94-219
Author(s):  
I.S. CHUPRUNOV
Keyword(s):  
General Rule ◽  
Constitutive Theory ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Public Corporation ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
Right Of First Refusal ◽  
The Right

The paper provides analysis of the legal nature and the mechanism for exercise of the right of pre-emption (right of first refusal) in respect of execution of a contract taking as an example of right of first refusal to purchase a stake in a non-public corporation, and also examines the boundaries of parties’ autonomy and freedom of contract in this area. The author comes to the conclusion that the key elements of the construction of the right of pre-emption are the transformation powers that belong to the right holder. The author also demonstrates that, notwithstanding their dominance in Russian law, the views, which suggest that exercise of the right of pre-emption leads to “transfer of rights and obligations of a purchaser” (the translative theory), should be rejected. These views must be replaced with the constitutive theory, according to which exercise of the right of pre-emption results in a new contract between the right holder and the seller (as a general rule, on the same terms that were agreed between the seller and the purchaser).

scholarly journals Will the imaginary active consumers please stand up? Case note to Walbusch Walter Busch: Case C-430/17 Walbusch Walter Busch GmbH & Co. KG v. Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV, EU:C:2019:47

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 713-719
Author(s):  
Joasia Luzak
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Frankfurt Am Main ◽  
Limited Space ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal ◽  
The Eu

The questions posed to the Court of Justice of the EU in the recent case of Walbusch Walter Busch asked what qualifies as the means of communication with a limited space or time to display the information and how detailed the disclosure on the right of withdrawal needs to be on such a medium. The judgment in this case had to strike a balance between not limiting traders’ opportunities to use technological advances to reach consumers and one of the main objectives of consumer protection: ensuring consumers have a chance to make fully informed transactional decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document