With the fact that a particular consumer contract is concluded using means of distance communication (via the internet, telephone, etc.), a number of significant legal consequences are associated, including the possible creation of a right on the part of the consumer to “withdraw from the contract without stating a reason and without any penalty within 14 days of taking delivery” pursuant to Section 53(7) of the Civil Code (naturally subject to the condition that the other statutory prerequisites for the creation of this right are satisfied).

One of the fundamental questions is whether it concerns a distance contract (a contract concluded using means of distance communication) only where exclusively means of distance communication were used for concluding the contract, or also where means of distance communication were used in making at least some legal acts. According to the provision of Article 2(1) of the Directive on the protection of the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (85/577/EEC), in the case of contracts concluded at a distance, a contract concluded at a distance means “any contract concerning goods or services concluded between a supplier and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme run by the supplier, who, for the purpose of that contract, makes exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded”.

However, the Czech legislator provides a different formulation, when in the provision of Section 53(1) of the Civil Code it states that “means of distance communication may be used for concluding the contract” and further in the provision of Section 53(7) of the Civil Code it uses the term “contract concluded using means of distance communication”. The interpretation of the provision of Section 53(1) of the Civil Code may thus not be unambiguous and two basic possibilities of its interpretation come into consideration.

Firstly, the provision applies whenever at least one of the acts (the proposal for concluding the contract or its acceptance) is made at a distance. This interpretation is the broadest and would provide the consumer with the highest degree of protection. The discrepancy with the wording of Article 2(1) of the Directive on the protection of the consumer in respect of contracts concluded at a distance is not problematic, since pursuant to Article 14 of the Directive on contracts concluded at a distance “Member States may, in the area covered by this Directive, introduce or maintain more stringent provisions compatible with the Treaty, to ensure a higher level of consumer protection”.

Secondly, the provision applies only where all legal acts in the process of concluding the contract are made at a distance. Although this possibility is the least advantageous for the consumer, I am of the opinion that a teleological (purposive) and Euro-conforming interpretation leads precisely to this variant. This interpretation cannot be rejected even for conflict with the provision of Section 55(3) of the Civil Code, pursuant to which in cases of doubt as to the meaning of consumer contracts, an interpretation more favourable to the consumer applies, since this interpretative rule is applied when interpreting the meaning of the wording of a consumer contract, and not when interpreting statutory text.

Even in the case of adopting the interpretation stated in the second variant, however, it must be recalled that the manner of taking delivery of goods by the consumer (in person at the supplier’s, through a courier or post, etc.) is not decisive in relation to the question of whether the contract was concluded “using means of distance communication” or not.

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