In June 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a further judgment which addressed the manner of fulfilling information obligations towards consumers. Specifically, this concerned the judgment in Case C-380/19 of 25 June 2020, which bears the lengthy designation “Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG”.
The subject matter of the dispute was the interpretation of the provisions of Article 13 of the Directive on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes, which establishes the trader’s obligation to inform the consumer about which body is competent for the out-of-court resolution of disputes between the trader and the consumer. As is known, in our legal environment, for the area of internet commerce this is most frequently the Czech Trade Inspection Authority (Česká obchodní inspekce).
In the case in question, the issue was that the company Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG operated a website with an offer of its products and services aimed at consumers; however, it was not possible to conclude contracts through this website (that is to say, it was not a classic e-shop, but merely informational pages). Nevertheless, the wording of this company’s terms and conditions, which were intended to govern legal relations with its customers, was made publicly available on the website. The terms and conditions were thus primarily intended to regulate those cases where the conclusion of contracts occurs otherwise than online (most frequently in a brick-and-mortar establishment). Although information about out-of-court dispute resolution was not expressly contained in these terms and conditions, it could be found elsewhere on the website in question.
A consumer rights organisation raised with the German court the question of whether this practice of the company Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG was in accordance with the wording of the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Directive. This provision specifically establishes that information regarding out-of-court dispute resolution “must be provided in a clear, comprehensible and easily accessible manner on the trader’s website, where such a website exists, and, where applicable, in the general terms and conditions of sales contracts or service contracts concluded between the trader and the consumer.” The Court of Justice of the European Union reached the conclusion that the solution chosen by the company Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG was not correct and that information regarding out-of-court dispute resolution should also be contained in the published terms and conditions. The facts that the website was not intended for the conclusion of contracts and that the trader fulfilled this information obligation in another manner were not assessed by the court as decisive for this case.
By this judgment, in our opinion, it was also indirectly confirmed that the fulfilment of various information obligations within the trader’s terms and conditions, which has also become established in practice in our country, should be a lawful solution. This naturally applies with the exception of certain specific areas, such as the protection of personal data, where the GDPR requires a special document for the fulfilment of the trader’s information obligations.
Josef Aujezdský
This text was originally prepared by the law firm Mašek, Kočí, Aujezdský in cooperation with the Association for Electronic Commerce (APEK) as legal bulletin No. 6/2020 intended for members of this association.
This text was translated from Czech to English using an AI translator.