EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022CA0177
Case C-177/22, Wurth Automotive: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — JA v Wurth Automotive GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Concept of ‘consumer’ — Conduct of the person claiming the status of consumer that may give rise to the impression, on the part of the other contracting party, that he or she is acting for professional purposes)
Case C-177/22, Wurth Automotive: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — JA v Wurth Automotive GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Concept of ‘consumer’ — Conduct of the person claiming the status of consumer that may give rise to the impression, on the part of the other contracting party, that he or she is acting for professional purposes)
Case C-177/22, Wurth Automotive: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — JA v Wurth Automotive GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Concept of ‘consumer’ — Conduct of the person claiming the status of consumer that may give rise to the impression, on the part of the other contracting party, that he or she is acting for professional purposes)
OJ C 164, 8.5.2023, p. 16–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.5.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 164/16 |
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — JA v Wurth Automotive GmbH
(Case C-177/22, (1) Wurth Automotive)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Conduct of the person claiming the status of consumer that may give rise to the impression, on the part of the other contracting party, that he or she is acting for professional purposes)
(2023/C 164/21)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Landesgericht Salzburg
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: JA
Defendant: Wurth Automotive GmbH
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a person who concluded a contract falling under point (c) of that provision may be classified as a ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, account must be taken of the current and future purposes of the conclusion of that contract, irrespective of the nature of the activity pursued by that person as an employed or self-employed person. |
|
2. |
Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a person who has concluded a contract falling under point (c) of that provision can be classified as a ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, account may be taken of the impression created by that person’s conduct on the part of the other contracting party, consisting, in particular, in a lack of a reaction on the part of the person relying on the status of consumer to the terms of the contract designating him or her as a trader, where that person has concluded that contract through an intermediary, pursuing professional activities in the field covered by that contract, who, after signing that same contract, questioned the other party about the possibility of stating the value added tax on the relevant invoice or even where that person sold the goods covered by the contract shortly after its conclusion and potentially made a profit. |
|
3. |
Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, where it proves impossible to determine to the requisite legal standard, in the context of the overall assessment of the information that is available to a national court, certain circumstances surrounding the conclusion of a contract, as regards, in particular, the information in that contract or the involvement of an intermediary at the time of its conclusion, that court must assess the probative value of the information available to it in accordance with the rules of national law, including whether the benefit of the doubt must be given to the person relying on the status of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision. |