Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: link
    • Member State: France
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 25/11/2010
    • Court: Cour de Cassation (Supreme court)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords:
  • Directive Articles
    Distance Selling Directive, Article 3, 2.
  • Headnote
    No headnotes available.
  • Facts
    Two consumers, who had booked a stay in a hotel in Dakar for several nights through the internet site of a travel agent company, made a mistake concerning their reservation dates. Upon realising their mistake, they requested that their booking be changed or, if not possible, that the money paid over be reimbursed. The travel agent refused both suggestions. As a result the consumers asserted that they had a right of withdrawal, which was confirmed at first instance. On appeal by the travel agents, the Court of Cassation overturned the decision of the lower court for having misapplied articles L. 121-20 and L. 121-20-4 of the French Consumer Code.
  • Legal issue
    Article L. 121-20-4 of the French Consumer Code, which apart from the last subparagraph transposes article 3(2) of Directive 97/7/EC on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts into national law, provides that where the consumer’s right of withdrawal is purportedly contracted out in a contract concluded by means of distance communication, the limitation only relates to contracts for a list of services included in the article. There was an open question of statutory interpretation as to whether the omission of the right of withdrawal relates to the all of the services included in the list or whether it could apply to an individual clause. The text of the articles does not really indicate which interpretation should be preferred. However, as regards the case of contracts concluded by means of distance communication, it may be useful to note that the full text of the article refers to contracts which “provide the abovementioned services”, which could leave one to think that in this instance the limitation of the right of withdrawal must relate to all of the services mentioned.
  • Decision

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result