In this legal bulletin, we shall focus on the July judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU, which dealt with the interpretation of the provisions of Article 6(1)(c) of the Consumer Rights Directive. This regulates one of the information obligations of an internet trader towards a consumer before the conclusion of a contract. Specifically, this provision of the Directive stipulates that “before the consumer is bound by a distance contract…, the trader shall provide the consumer in a clear and comprehensible manner with the following information… the geographical address at which the trader is established and the trader’s telephone number, fax number and e-mail address, where available, to enable the consumer to contact the trader quickly and communicate with him efficiently…”

Within Czech law, this obligation was implemented (albeit not entirely precisely) within the provisions of Section 1811(2)(a) of the Civil Code. This states that “where the parties’ conduct is directed towards the conclusion of a contract and these facts are not apparent from the context, the trader shall inform the consumer sufficiently in advance before the conclusion of the contract or before the consumer makes a binding offer of his identity, or where applicable a telephone number or address for the delivery of electronic mail or another contact detail…”

Given that even the implementation of the Directive into German law did not make entirely clear what precise scope of obligations this provision of the Directive is to impose on traders, the interpretation of this question reached the Court of Justice of the EU. Indeed, the interpretation of this provision may be unclear at many levels. Specifically, it may be contentious what precise contact details a trader is obliged to communicate to a consumer before the conclusion of a contract, whether he must also communicate such contact details which he does not use for communication with customers, or even whether this provision imposes on the trader an obligation to establish a telephone line, fax line or new e-mail address if he does not yet have them. Furthermore, the question arose whether a trader may, for these purposes (effective communication with customers), also use other means of communication which the provision of the Directive does not expressly mention, such as an instant messaging system (chat) or call-back.

In the abovementioned judgment, the Court of Justice of the EU reached the conclusion that the provision of Article 6(1)(c) of the Directive does not specify the precise nature of the means of communication which a trader must establish for communication with consumers. It cannot, for example, be interpreted as meaning that a trader should in all circumstances provide his telephone number. On the other hand, this provision requires that “the trader make available to all consumers a means of communication which enables them to contact him quickly and communicate with him effectively.”

Furthermore, the Court stated that the provision in question does not impose “on the trader an obligation to establish a telephone or fax line or to set up a new e-mail address which will enable consumers to contact him”, whilst it requires that “he communicate a telephone or fax number or his e-mail address only in cases where the trader already has these means of communication with consumers at his disposal.” Last but not least, the Court of Justice of the EU stated that this provision of the Directive does not preclude “a trader from providing other means of communication than those listed in that provision”, provided that he makes “available to the consumer a means of communication capable of satisfying the criteria of direct and effective communication.”

Josef Aujezdský, advocate

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. 7/2019 intended for members of this association.

This text was translated from Czech to English using an AI translator.