The Commission's Proposal for a Regulation Rome I has introduced significant amendments in the law applicable to consumer contracts. Two of them imply an important change compared to the previous approach. Firstly, the proposed conflict rule eliminates party autonomy in consumer contracts and it therefore establishes a rigid objective connection (= habitual residence of the consumer). The Commission justifies the amendment with the need to simplify and also to guarantee legal certainty as regards the law applicable to the contract. Nevertheless, the proposed approach is not based on the logic of integration, a negative result from a Community perspective. Secondly, the proposed rule introduces a new requirement, i.e. the habitual residence of the consumer has to be in the EU. Therefore, the conflict rule only protects consumers habitually resident a Member State territory. It establishes a different regime for consumers residing in the Community and those residing in a Non-Member State. This approach is a political option with significant implication regarding intracommunity and extracommunity consumer contracts. It is not, however, a discriminatory option since the intracommunity and extracommunity consumer relations are different. It is, therefore, possible to establish different rules as far as the differences are justified in the logic of integration.

ESADE

Back to home

Añoveros Terradas, Beatriz

Consumidor residente en la Unión Europea vs. consumidor residente en un estado tercero: a propósito de la propuesta de reglamento Roma I

2009
itemDefault The Commission's Proposal for a Regulation Rome I has introduced significant amendments in the law applicable to consumer contracts. Two of them imply an important change compared to the previous approach. Firstly, the proposed conflict rule eliminates party autonomy in consumer contracts and it therefore establishes a rigid objective connection (= habitual residence of the consumer). The Commission justifies the amendment with the need to simplify and also to guarantee legal certainty as regards the law applicable to the contract. Nevertheless, the proposed approach is not based on the logic of integration, a negative result from a Community perspective. Secondly, the proposed rule introduces a new requirement, i.e. the habitual residence of the consumer has to be in the EU. Therefore, the conflict rule only protects consumers habitually resident a Member State territory. It establishes a different regime for consumers residing in the Community and those residing in a Non-Member State. This approach is a political option with significant implication regarding intracommunity and extracommunity consumer contracts. It is not, however, a discriminatory option since the intracommunity and extracommunity consumer relations are different. It is, therefore, possible to establish different rules as far as the differences are justified in the logic of integration.
More Knowledge
Consumidor residente en la Unión Europea vs. consumidor residente en un estado tercero: a propósito de la propuesta de reglamento Roma I
Añoveros Terradas, Beatriz
In Derecho de consumo: actas del Congreso Internacional sobre Derecho de Consumo
M. P. Canedo Arrillaga (coord.)
Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch, 2009
p. 739 - 766
Homenajes y congresos

Related publications

Back to home