| Abstrakt: |
The article analyzes the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl, specifically the court's conclusion that a choice of law clause may be an unfair term if a trader does not inform consumers about Art. 6(2) Rome I Regulation. This provision guarantees consumers the standard of protection resulting from mandatory rules of the law of the State of their habitual residence. The author focuses on three sub-questions: the application of Council Directive 93/13/EEC to choice of law clauses, the traders' obligation to inform consumers about the effects of Art. 6(2) Rome I Regulation and the effects of Art. 6(2) Rome I Regulation. In particular, the author expresses her disagreement with the creation of the information obligation and with the interpretation of Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation, which denies the preferential law approach. The article shows that the problem of the judgment consists, to a great extent, in a lack of reasoning and as a result, it raises more questions than it answers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
