Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document C2007/223/03

Case C-298/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 June 2007 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v deutsche internet versicherung AG

IO C 223, 22.9.2007, p. 4–4 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.9.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 June 2007 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v deutsche internet versicherung AG

(Case C-298/07)

(2007/C 223/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände —Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendant: deutsche internet versicherung AG

Questions referred

1.

Is a service provider required under Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (1) to provide a telephone number before entering into a contract with a user of the service, so that he can be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is negative:

(a)

Is a service provider required under Article 5(1)(c) of the directive to offer a second means of communication, in addition to indicating his electronic mail address, prior to entering into a contract with a user of the service?

(b)

If the answer is positive: Does it suffice, for the purposes of a second means of communication, that the service provider installs an enquiry mask enabling the user to consult the service provider via the Internet, the user's enquiry then being answered by the service provider by means of electronic mail?

(1)  OJ L 178, p. 1.

Top