Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consumer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dictionary of Statuses within EU Law

Abstract

In the present chapter, we propose to analyse the category of consumer and how this individual status is being conditioned by European Union (EU) law. After a brief reference to the methodology used, the analysis begins with a consideration about the foundations of consumer protection in EU law and how it developed from an instrument to develop the EU internal market to a relevant one to define the Status of EU citizens and residents as consumers and players in the market under modern EU law. We will consider consumer protection configuration, the notion of consumer, and the development of a consumer legal framework in the EU, with references to national legislation that can reinforce consumer status. We also consider the European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law, not only regarding its important role in the definition of the notion of a consumer but also in the development of a consumer constitutional procedural for Status, consolidating the consumer position in the national judicial process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In fact, the EU market success depends on cross-border consumer activity (see de Vries 2012).

  2. 2.

    Nevertheless, consumer law configuration depends on the ‘underlying consumer image’, and EU consumer law is forcing national legislators and courts to overcome a rigid and uniform national concept of consumer (Rott 2014).

  3. 3.

    The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, better known as the EU Charter, was elaborated in 2000, adopted in 2007, and entered into force with the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December, 2009.

  4. 4.

    In fact, as Menendez (2003, pp. 183–187) pointed out, we can distinguish a typology of legal positions: fundamental rights, ordinary rights, and policy clauses; consumer protection is a policy clause.

  5. 5.

    C-438/05 Viking Line.

  6. 6.

    EU Charter provisions are addressed not only to EU institutions but also to the EU Member States when they are implementing EU law.

  7. 7.

    The ECJ is clear about the interpretation of EU consumer which exclude legal persons although they have a non-business character.

  8. 8.

    In fact, it is the secondary EU law, each statute, which makes individual definitions for any of the statute purposes. The different approaches already have been subject of several interesting contributions outlining differences and similitudes (see Lazíková and Rumanovská 2016; Hedegaard and Wrbka 2016).

  9. 9.

    C-541/99 and 542/99 Cape Snc and Idealserive joined cases.

  10. 10.

    C-361/89 Di Pinto and C–269/95 Francesco Benincasa v Dentalkit Sr.

  11. 11.

    C–464/01 Johann Gruber.

  12. 12.

    C–110/14 Costea.

  13. 13.

    See Stuyck (2010, p. 29), Schueller (2012, p. 123), Lazíková and Rumanovská (2016, p. 2), Hedegaard and Wrbka (2016, p. 87).

  14. 14.

    In the notion of consumer, it is important to know the status of the parties, i.e. the rights and obligations, because the legal consequences are different. Some authors speak about two sides of the consumer notion; the external side is whether or not a person can be called or not a consumer in a legal sense, while the internal side determines the differences between consumers (groups or classes of consumers) who need a special protection and those who do not, and it is linked to the consumer protection model (see Hedegaard and Wrbka 2016, pp. 76–77).

  15. 15.

    The European Commission’s recent report suggests as a solution to provide for a legal presumption of being a consumer ‘whenever a natural person concludes a contract for sale and/or services with a salesman or a business’ (European Commission 2017b, p. 29).

  16. 16.

    In the case of UK is the recent Consumer Rights Act of 2015 which seeks to consolidate, simplify, and modernise the consumer protection legislation in UK absorbing and consolidating the EU directives. See Giliker (2018).

  17. 17.

    See C-192/04 Lagardère and C-233/94 Germany v. European Parliament and EU Council.

  18. 18.

    In fact, Declaration N. 28 in relation to the delimitation of competences states that the EU may decide to repeal an act to ensure a constant respect of the proportional and subsidiarity principles (Tridimas 2012, p. 63, note 55).

  19. 19.

    The traditional minimum approach allowed member states to maintain their national pre-existing approaches (Kunnecke 2014, pp. 427–428).

  20. 20.

    Some authors argue, however, that EU consumer law has focused until today principally in the development of the internal market (see Howes et al. 2017).

  21. 21.

    Therefore, we can see two bases to legislate. The first one is not a general competence or legislative power for EU harmonisation (Weatherill 2013, p. 352; Lazíková 2016, p. 23; Micossi 2016, p. 11), but the limits can be unclear and it is an important legal base to legislate. One can interpret that the EU has the flexibility to develop a traditional minimum harmonisation approach or a maximum one. The second legal base is clearly complementary to the member states in the sense that EU measures are adopted to support, supplement, and monitor national policies (article 169(2b) TFEU), without preventing national measures which maintain or introduce a higher protection following article 169(4) TFEU.

  22. 22.

    Certainly, authors argue about the application of the USA Constitutional Dormant Doctrine or the pre-emption doctrine to the EU shared competences. In this sense, EU law can be interpreted to incorporate a restraining effect on national powers, that is, member states shall, when implementing their own legislation in shared competences, guarantee EU law, including EU principles, and must avoid jeopardising the EU regulation (Luif 2014; Rossi 2012; Schütze 2006; Tridimas 2012; Weatherill 2002).

  23. 23.

    Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. OJEU L304/64 22.11.2011.

  24. 24.

    Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees. OJ L 171 7.7.1999.

  25. 25.

    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. OJ L 95 21.4.1993.

  26. 26.

    Directive 2013/11/EU of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC OJL 165 18.06.2013.

  27. 27.

    Regulation (EC) No 524/2013 of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes OJ L165/1 18.06.2013.

  28. 28.

    C-432/05 Unibet.

  29. 29.

    C-240/98 to 244/98 Oceano Grupo joined cases.

  30. 30.

    Some authors argue that there is a unpredictability application of ex officio doctrine by the ECJ (see Trstenjak and Beysen 2011; report of the European Commission 2017b, p. 189).

  31. 31.

    C-243/08 Pannon GSM.

  32. 32.

    C-137/08 Pénzügyi.

  33. 33.

    C-282/10 Dominguez, paragraph 27.

  34. 34.

    C-618/10 Banco Español de Crédito. The ECJ stated that the Spanish procedural rules about the payment procedure were contrary to the principle of effectiveness in preventing consumer protection. The reason is that the Spanish legislation did not allow the national court when it had the facts and law elements to examine ex officio the unfairness of a contractual default interest clause contained in a contact held between a professional and a consumer when the consumer did not raise opposition to it.

  35. 35.

    C-415/11Mohamed Aziz. The ECJ stated that Spanish legislation was incompatible with EU law because in regulating mortgage enforcement proceedings, it did not provide the possibility of formulating grounds of opposition based on the unfairness of a contractual term (which is the basis of an ejection title). At the same time, the law did not allow the judge of the declarative process (which is the power to assess the unfairness of the clause) to take precautionary measures, including the suspension of the mortgage enforcement proceeding when it is necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of the court’s final decision. The problem with the Spanish legislation was that it did not cover and guarantee the rights of a consumer in relation to banks because they could discuss the unfairness of a clause only in the declarative process, not in the mortgage enforcement proceedings. At the same time, in the mortgage enforcement proceedings, the consumer could not argue the unfairness of a clause. In this sense, according to that legislation, the consumer usually lost the mortgage enforcement proceedings, and after that if he/she won the declarative process, it would be impossible to gain recuperation of the house, impacting the protection of rights of the Spanish consumer.

  36. 36.

    C-169/14 Sánchez Morcillo. The ECJ mentioned the Banesto and Aziz cases, and observed that Spanish legislation in relation to mortgage enforcement ‘gives the seller or supplier, as a creditor seeking enforcement, the rights to bring an appeal against a decision ordering a stay of enforcement or declaring an unfair clause inapplicable, but does not permit, by contrast, the consumer to exercise a right of appeal against a decision dismissing and objection to enforcement’.

  37. 37.

    C-154/15 Gutiérrez Naranjo. The ECJ rules incompatible to the EU consumer protection framework a national case law such as the Spanish Supreme Court doctrine which restricts the restitutory effects connected with the invalidity of an unfair term to the amounts overpaid after the delivery of the decision; from the ECJ perspective, the restoring effect has a retroactive effect.

References

  • Arzoz Santiesteban, X. (2013). La autonomía institucional y procedimental de los Estados miembros en la Unión Europea: Mito y realidad. Revista de Administración Pública, 191, 159–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (2010). The substantive law of the EU (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benöhr, I. (2013). EU consumer law and human rights. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D., Davies, G., & Monti, G. (2014). European Union law (3rd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, S. (2012). Consumer protection and the EU single market rules – The search for the ‘paradigm consumer. Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, 5(4), 228–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2017a). Consumer rights and law. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/index_en.htm

  • European Commission. (2017b). An evaluation study of national procedural laws and practices in terms of their impact on the free circulation of judgements and on the equivalence and effectiveness of the procedural protection of consumers under EU consumer law. JUST/2014/RCON/PR/CIVI/0082. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=612847

  • Galetta, D.-U. (2011). Procedural autonomy of EU member states: Paradise lost? Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giliker, P. (2018). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 – a bastion of European consumer rights? Legal Studies, 37(1), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez Sánchez, Y. (2011). Constitucionalismo multinivel: Derechos Fundamentales. Madrid, Spain: Sanz y Torres.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedegaard, J. S., & Wrbka, S. (2016). The notion of consumer under EU legislation and EU case law: Between the poles of legal certainty and flexibility. In M. Fenwick & S. Wrbka (Eds.), Legal certainty in a contemporary context: Private and criminal law perspectives (pp. 69–88). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Howes, G., Twigg-Flesner, C., & Wilhelmsson, T. (2017). Rethinking EU consumer law. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunnecke, A. (2014). New standards in EU consumer rights protection? The new directive 2011/83/EU. European Scientific Journal, 1, 426–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazíková, J. (2016). The consumer policy in the EU law. EU Agrarian Law, 5(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/eual-2016-0003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazíková, J., & Rumanovská, L. (2016). The notion of consumer in the EU law. EU Agrarian Law, 5(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/eual-2016-0006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leczykiewicz, D., & Weatherill, S. (2016). The images of the consumer in EU law. In D. Leczykiewicz & S. Weatherill (Eds.), The images of the consumer in EU law: Legislation, free movement and competition law. Oxford, England: Hart Publishing. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper 9/2016. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2743283

  • Luif, P. (2014). The division of powers/competences between the EU and the member states: What can we learn from pre-emption in the United States. In L. S. Rossi & F. Casorali (Eds.), The EU after Lisbon. Amending or coping with the existing treaties (pp. 37–56). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mańko, R. (2013, May 6). The notion of ‘consumer’ in EU law. Library Briefing. Library of the European Parliament. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2013/130477/LDM_BRI130477_REV1_EN.pdf

  • Martínez Velencoso, L. M. (2017). The impact of harmonized European private law and the Aquis Communautaire on national law around Europe. In A. Solanes Corella & E. M. Górriz Royo (dir). Legal challenges of the XXI century (pp. 247–298). Valencia, Spain: Tirant lo Blanch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menendez, J. A. (2003). Rights to solidarity’: Balancing solidarity and economic freedoms. In E. Eriksen, J. Fossum, & J. Menéndez (Eds.), Chartering of Europe, the European charter of fundamental rights and its constitutional implications (pp. 179–198). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mickilitz, H. W. (2013). Mohamed Aziz-sympathetic and activist, but did the court get it wrong? In ECLN Conference Florence When the ECJ gets it wrong. Retrieved from http://www.ecln.net/tl_files/ECLN/Florence%202013/Micklitz%20-%20The%20ECJ%20gets%20it%20wrong%20Aziz-30-11-14.pdf

  • Micossi, S. (2016). Thirty years of the single European market (CEPS Special Report, No. 148). Retrieved from https://www.ceps.eu/publications/thirty-years-single-european-market

  • Rossi, L. S. (2012). Does the Lisbon treaty provide a clear separation of competences between EU and member states? In A. Biondi, P. Eeckhout, & S. Ripley (Eds.), EU after Lisbon (pp. 85–106). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rott, P. (2014). The low-income consumer in European private law. In K. Purnhagen & P. Rott (Eds.), Varieties of European economic law and regulation. Studies in European economic law and regulation (Vol. 3, pp. 675–691). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarrión, J. (2010). Social rights protection problems in conflicting situations with market freedoms in European Union Law. Revista Universitaria Europea, 13, 85–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarrión, J. (2011). El nuevo horizonte constitucional para la Unión Europea: A propósito de la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa y la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales. CEFLegal: Revista Práctica del Derecho, 162, 53–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarrión, J. (2014a). Effective judicial protection in consumer protection in the ECJ’s Case Law. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2526709

  • Sarrión, J. (2014b). Sobre la necesaria reforma de la legislación española a la luz de la STJUE de 14 de marzo de 2013, Aziz c. CatalunyaCaixa, C-415/11. In Il diritto patrimoniale di fronte alla crisi economica in Italia e in Spagna (pp. 437–448). Milano, Italy: CEDAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarrión, J. (2015). Actual trends and challenges of the constitutional fundamental rights and principles in the ECJ case law from the perspective of multilevel constitutionalism. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2656394

  • Sarrión, J. (2018). The configuration of an EU constitutional procedural status for consumer protection. In A. Bartolini & D. Zammit (Eds.), European dimensions of individual status. Perugia: ISEG. (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schueller, B. (2012). The definition of consumers in EU consumer law. In J. Devenney & M. Kenny (Eds.), European consumer protection: Theory and practice (pp. 123–142). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, R. (2006). Supremacy without pre-emption? The very slowly emergent doctrine of community pre-emption. Common Market Law Review, 43(4), 1023–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuyck, J. (2010). Setting the scene. In H.-W. Micklitz, J. Stuck, & E. Terryn (Eds.), Cases, materials and text on consumer law (pp. 1–69). Oxford, England: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas, T. (2012). Competence after Lisbon. The elusive search for bright lines. In D. Ashiagbor, N. Countouris, & I. Lianos (Eds.), The European Union after the Lisbon treaty (pp. 47–77). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trstenjak, V., & Beysen, E. (2011). European consumer protection law: Curia semper dabit remedium? Common Market Law Review, 48(1), 95–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill, S. (2002). Pre-emption, harmonisation and distribution of competences to regulate the internal market. In C. Barnard & J. Scott (Eds.), The law of the single market: Unpacking the premises (pp. 41–74). Oxford, England: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill, S. (2013). EU consumer law and policy. Cheltenham, England: Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ramón y Cajal Programme, Departamento de Derecho Constitucional, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain

    Joaquín Sarrión Esteve

Authors
  1. Joaquín Sarrión Esteve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joaquín Sarrión Esteve .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Antonio Bartolini

  2. Department of Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Roberto Cippitani

  3. National Research Council, IFAC Institute, Sesto Fiorentino, Firenze, Italy

    Valentina Colcelli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sarrión Esteve, J. (2019). Consumer. In: Bartolini, A., Cippitani, R., Colcelli, V. (eds) Dictionary of Statuses within EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00554-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00554-2_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00553-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00554-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation