Social Justice—Consumer Protection

  • Christoph Schmon
Part of the Short Studies in Private International Law book series (SSIL)


The Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Rome I Regulation acknowledge that the need for protection of the weaker party is even more pressing in situations that have a cross-border dimension. Both Regulations show their tandem function of protecting consumers with rules that are more beneficial than the general ones and set out almost identical preconditions for their application. In the realm of consumer contracts, the discrepancies between the procedural justice model under the Brussels I Recast Regulation and the conflict of laws justice model under the Rome I Regulation are reduced as social values under substantial law have been transferred into private international law. Save for exceptions, jurisdiction and applicable law can be determined by the same criteria, which will lead to a synchronisation of forum and ius. A mutual transfer of the Court of Justice case law across the legal acts will be possible. Due to different concepts and the application of a favor defensoris principle, certain frictions nevertheless remain.


Weaker Party Consumer Protection Alpenhof Case EU Consumer Law Brussels I Regulation Rome I Regulation Materialisation Substantive Justice Congruence Favor Defensoris 


  1. Basedow J (2015) The Law of Open Societies – Private Ordering and Public Regulation in the Conflict of Laws. Brill Nijhoff, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  2. Bitter AK (2008) Auslegungszusammenhang zwischen Brüssel I-VO und Rom I-VO. IPRax 96–101Google Scholar
  3. Bonomi A (2015) Jurisdiction over Consumer Contracts. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 213–237Google Scholar
  4. Busch C (2016) The future of pre-contractual information duties: from behavioural insights to big data. In: Twigg-Flesner C (ed) EU Consumer and Contract Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 221–241Google Scholar
  5. Calliess G-P (2003) Coherence and Consistency in European Consumer Contract Law: a Progress Report. GLJ 4:333–371Google Scholar
  6. Calliess G-P (2006) Grenzüberschreitende Verbraucherverträge. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins H (2011) The constitutionalization of European private law as a path to social justice? In: Micklitz H (ed) The Many Concepts of Social Justice in European Private Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 133–166Google Scholar
  8. Devenney J, Kenny M (2012) European Consumer Protection: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Dornis TW (2015) Die Theorie der local data: dogmatische Bruchstelle im klassischen IPR. SZIER/RSDIE 25:183–216Google Scholar
  10. Garcimartín AF (2008) The Rome I-Regulation: Much ado about nothing? EuLF 2:61–79Google Scholar
  11. Hill J (2008) Cross-border Consumer Contracts. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Juenger F (1974) Zum Wandels des Internationales Privatrechts. Juristische Studiengesellschaft Karlsruhe Schriftenreihe, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  13. Kegel G, Schurig K (2004) Internationales Privatrecht, 9th edn. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  14. Kronman AT (1980) Contract Law and Distributive Justice. Yale L. J. 89:472–511Google Scholar
  15. Kropholler J (1978) Das kollisionsrechtliche System des Schutzes der schwächeren Vertragspartei. RabelsZ 42:634–661Google Scholar
  16. Leible S (2006) Internationales Vertragsrecht, die Arbeiten an einer Rom I-Verordnung und der Europäische Vertragsgerichtsstand. IPRax 365–371Google Scholar
  17. Leible S (2009) Rom I und Rom II: Neue Perspektiven im Europäischen Kollisionsrecht. Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht 173:43–78Google Scholar
  18. Lein E (2008) The New Rome I/Rome II/Brussels I Synergy. YPIL 10:177–198Google Scholar
  19. Liukkunen US (2012) Collision Between the Economic and the Social - What Has Private International Law Got to Do with It? In: Letto-Vanamo P, Smits J (eds) Coherence and Fragmentation in European Private Law. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Cologne, pp 125–150Google Scholar
  20. Lurger B, Augenhofer S (2008) Österreichisches und Europäisches Konsumentenschutzrecht. Springer, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  21. Mankowski P (2006) Art 5 des Vorschlags für eine Rom I-Verordnung – Revolution im Internationalen Verbrauchervertragsrecht? ZvglRWiss 105:120–163Google Scholar
  22. Meškić Z (2008) Europäisches Verbraucherrecht – gemeinschaftliche vorgaben und europäische Perspektiven. Manz, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  23. Micklitz H (2009) Jack is out of the Box – the Efficient Consumer-Shopper. In: Bärlund JC et al (eds) Festschrift T Wilhelmsson. 3-4 Tidskrift Utgiven av Juridiska Foreningen i Finland (JFT), The Law Society of Finland, Helsinki, pp 417–436Google Scholar
  24. Micklitz H (2011) Introduction. In: Micklitz H (ed) The Many Concepts of Social Justice. Cheltenham/Northampton, Edward Elgar, pp 3–60Google Scholar
  25. Nemeth K (2000) Kollisionsrechtlicher Verbraucherschutz in Europa. Manz, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  26. Neuhaus PH (1976) Die Grundbegriffe des internationalen Privatrechts, 2nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  27. Nielsen PA (2007) Jurisdiction over consumer contracts. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I Regulation: European Commentaries on Private International Law. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 301–325Google Scholar
  28. Pfeiffer T (2000) Materialisierung und Internationalisierung im Recht der Internationalen Zuständigkeit. In: Canaris W, Heldrich A (eds) 50 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof - Festgabe aus der Wissenschaft. Beck, Munich, 617–643Google Scholar
  29. Plender R, Wilderspin M (2009) The European Private International Law of Obligations, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Reich N (2014) Cross-Border Consumer Protection. In: Reich N et al (eds) European Consumer Law, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 285–336Google Scholar
  31. Reich N (2015) Leitbilder des Europäischen Verbraucherrechts – Funktionale Differenzierung vs. zunehmende Individualisierung? In: Kohte W, Absenger N (eds) Festschrift für Arming Höland, Menschenrechte und Solidarität im internationalen Diskurs. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 326–345Google Scholar
  32. Reich N, Micklitz H (2014) Economic Law, Consumer Interests, and EU Integration. In: Reich N et al (eds) European Consumer Law, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 1–64Google Scholar
  33. Rühl G (2007) Party Autonomy in the Private International Law of Contracts: Transatlantic Convergence and Economic Efficiency. CLPE Research Paper 4:1–41Google Scholar
  34. Sachse K (2006) Der Verbrauchervertrag im Internationalen Privat- und Prozessrecht, Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  35. Saumier G (2014) Case Emrek: Expanding jurisdiction for consumer claims under the Brussels regime. EJCL 199–206Google Scholar
  36. Schmon C (2009) Gewinnzusagen im europäischen Zivilverfahrensrecht. JAP 19:171–175Google Scholar
  37. Schmon C (2018) Schrems vs Facebook: Internationale Zuständigkeit bei Forderungsabtretung. ecolex 248–249Google Scholar
  38. Sibony A-L, Helleringer G (2015) EU Consumer Protection and Behavioural Sciences: Revolution or Reform? In: Alemanno A, Sibony A-L (eds) Nudge and the Law: A European Perspective. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 209–234Google Scholar
  39. Study Group on Social Justice in European Private Law (2004) Social Justice in European Contract Law: A Manifesto. European Law Journal, 10:653–74Google Scholar
  40. Tang ZS (2010) Private International Law in Consumer Contracts: A European Perspective. JPIL 6:225–248Google Scholar
  41. Weatherill S (2013) EU Consumer Law and Policy, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  42. Zweigert K (1973) Zur Armut des IPR an sozialen Werten. RabelsZ 37: 435Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the author  2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Schmon
    • 1
  1. 1.NottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations