• Bijzonderheden rechtsleer
    • Lidstaat: België
    • Titel: Comments on the judgement of 8 February 2019 of the Court of Cassation
    • Subtitel:
    • Vorm: Case note
    • URL:
    • Auteur: KRUGER, Th. and KEUKELEIRE, A.
    • Referentie: “Noot onder Cass. (1ste k.), 8 februari 2019, C.18.0354.N”, DCCR 2020, nr. 1, 51-68.
    • Jaar van publicatie: 2020
    • Trefwoorden: Consumer contract, transport, unfair terms, forum (clause) , (validity -) jurisdiction
  • Richtlijnartikelen
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 3. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, ANNEX I, 1., (p)
  • Koptekst

    The authors thoroughly analyse five important subtopics of consumer protection in the light of the judgement of the Court of Cassation of 8 February 2019, which they take as a point of departure. The following topics are covered in the contribution: the exclusion of transport contracts (not package tours) from the consumer contracts dealt with in the Brussels Ibis Regulation, the unfair contract terms in B2C transport contracts, the relation between the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the Directive on unfair contract terms, the substantive validity of forum clauses under the Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the capability of a person to whom actions for an injunction were ceded by consumers, to retain the level of consumer protection. The authors conclude that the protection of a consumer as a passenger turns out to be a difficult jigsaw due to the fragmentation of the applicable rules. The broad application in Belgium of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive serves as a safety net for consumer protection. Yet, the complexity of the rules comes explicitly to the fore when one seeks to find out what law is applicable to the substantive (material) validity of the forum clauses. If this is the law of the forum chosen, including its PIL-rules, the outcome might have been different than the solution opted for by the Belgian Court of Cassation that simply ignored the step referring to the PIL-rules of the applicable law. Although the reasoning of the Court of Cassation could be welcomed from a consumer protection point of view, the authors conclude that the Court’s analysis is not entirely in line with Article 25(1) and introductory recital 20 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation.

  • Algemene opmerking
  • Verwante zaken

    Geen resultaten