BALANCING CONSUMER RIGHTS AND BUSINESS INTERESTS IN ONLINE CROSS-BORDER CONSUMER CONTRACTS

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Mathijs H. ten Wolde

Abstract

Protection of consumers as weaker parties is an important goal in Indonesian society and in Indonesian law. The same applies to the EU Member States. When it comes to crossborder consumer contracts, special rules are needed to ensure this goal can still be achieved. In this regard the European Union developed rules on jurisdiction and applicable law which apply both to situations exclusively connected with EU Member States and to international situations connected with third countries. The Brussels I Regulation pursues an objective of legal certainty which consists in strengthening the legal protection of persons established in the European Union, by enabling the applicant to easily identify the court in which he may sue and the defendant reasonably to foresee before which court, he may be sued. The Rome I Regulation does the same for the law regulating the protection of the consumer. This way both the aims of protection of the weaker consumer and legal certainty on the side of the commercial party go hand in hand. Where legal certainty is an important precondition for international trade and thus for a nation’s economy, clear rules are needed. By presenting the EU rules in the dynamics of the caselaw of the European Court of Justice, this article aims to contribute to the discussion on how future cross-border consumer protecting regulations could be shaped in Indonesia and ASEAN.

Keywords: cross-border, consumer protection, European Union, Indonesia, private international law

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

References

  1. Bank Indonesia, “Press Release: Importance of Consumer Protection in the Digital Economy Era,” 2021, https://www.bi.go.id/en/publikasi/ruang-media/news-release/Pages/sp_239621.aspx.
  2. Eloksari, Elsya A. “Digital Transactions Forecast to Grow 31% Next Year: Bank Indonesia,” Jakarta Post, 2021, https://www.thejakartapost.com/business/2021/11/29/digital-transactions-forecast-to-grow-31-next-year-bank-indonesia.html.
  3. Wolde, Mathijs H. ten, and Kirsten C. Henckel, Business and Private International Law in the EU. Paris: Europa Law Publishing, 2021
  4. Case C-110/14, Costea [2015] EU:C:2015:538
  5. Case C-190/11, Daniela Mühlleitner v Ahmad Yusufi Wadat Yusufi [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:542.
  6. Case C-269/95, Benincasa v Dentalkit [1997] EU:C:1997:337.
  7. Case C-419/11, Ceská sporitelna [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:165.
  8. Case C-464/01, Gruber v Bay Wa [2005] ECLI:EU:C:2005:32.
  9. Case C-498/16, Schrems [2018] EU:C:2018:37.
  10. Case C-508/12, Vapenik v Thurner [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:790.
  11. Case C-585/08, Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co. KG and Hotel Alpenhof v Heller [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:740.
  12. Case C-630/17, Milivojević v Raiffeisenbank [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:123.
  13. Case C-89/91, Shearson Lehman Hutton [1993] ECLI:EU:C:1993:15.
  14. Case C-191/15, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:612.
  15. Case C-208/18, Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Limited [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:825.
  16. Case C-218/12, Emrek [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:666.
  17. Case C-498/16, Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited ECLI:EU:C:2018:37.
  18. Case C-500/18, AU v Reliantco Investments LTD [2020] ECLI:EU:C:2020:264.
  19. Case C-98/20, mBank S.A. v PA [2020] ECLI:EU:C:2020:672.
  20. Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts [1993] OJ L 95/29-34.
  21. Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ 2008, L 177.
  22. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is applicable from 10 January 2015, OJ 2012, L 351