LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Loos, M.B.M. (2015)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:

Classified by OpenAIRE into

ACM Ref: ComputingMilieux_LEGALASPECTSOFCOMPUTING
This paper discusses whether and to what extent the transparency principle is applicable to standard contract terms legislation under European Union law and what the consequences are when the principle, in so far as it is recognized, is breached. To that extent, it focuses first on the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and second on the proposal for a Common European Sales Law.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 12 ECJ 26 Apr. 2012, C-472/10 NFH/Invitel, ECLI:EU:C:2012:242.
    • 13 Points 1(j) and (l) and 2(b) and (d) of the annex to the Directive, as mentioned above.
    • 14 ECJ 26 Apr. 2012, C-472/10 NFH/Invitel, ECLI:EU:C:2012:242, point 24. In points 25 and 26, the Court indicated that although the annex itself only contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms, which may be regarded as unfair, 'it is nevertheless an essential element on which the competent court may base its assessment as to the unfair nature of that term' and that with regard to terms allowing for changes in the total price the provisions in the annex are 'particularly relevant'.
    • 15 ECJ 26 Apr. 2012, C-472/10 NFH/Invitel, ECLI:EU:C:2012:242, points 27-29.
    • 16 ECJ 21 Mar. 2013, C-92/11 RWE Vertrieb AG/Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV, ECLI:C:EU:2013:180.
    • 17 ECJ 21 Mar. 2013, C-92/11 RWE Vertrieb AG/Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV, ECLI:C:EU:2013:180, points 40-44.
    • 18 Directive 2003/55/EC, OJ 2003, L 176/57.
    • 19 The directive has now been replaced by the Third Gas Directive mentioned earlier, but the substantive rules of Art. 3, para. 3 of this directive and Annex I to it are the same on this point.
    • 20 ECJ 21 Mar. 2013, C-92/11 RWE Vertrieb AG/Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV, ECLI:C:EU:2013:180, points 45-49.
    • 21 ECJ 21 Mar. 2013, C-92/11 RWE Vertrieb AG/Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV, ECLI:C:EU:2013:180, points 50-53.
    • 22 ECJ 30 Apr. 2014, C-26/13 Kásler and Káslerné Rábai/OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt, ECLI:EU: C:2014:282.
    • 23 ECJ 30 Apr. 2014, C-26/13 Kásler and Káslerné Rábai/OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt, ECLI:EU: C:2014:282, point 69.
    • 24 ECJ 30 Apr. 2014, C-26/13 Kásler and Káslerné Rábai/OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt, ECLI:EU: C:2014:282, points 67-72.
    • 25 ECJ 30 Apr. 2014, C-26/13 Kásler and Káslerné Rábai/OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt, ECLI:EU: C:2014:282, point 73.
    • 26 ECJ 30 Apr. 2014, C-26/13 Kásler and Káslerné Rábai/OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt, ECLI:EU: C:2014:282, point 74.
    • 27 ECJ 16 Jul. 1998, C-210/96 Gut Springenheide GmbH/Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt, ECLI:EU:C:1998:369, [ECR] 1998, p I-4657.
    • 28 Directive 2005/29/EC, OJ 2005, L 149/22.
    • 29 See on the notion of the average consumer critically the dissertation of B.B. DUIVENVOORDE, The Consumer Benchmarks in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, available online at http:// dare.uva.nl, search for 'Duivenvoorde' (last visited on 11 Jul. 2014). In this dissertation, Duivenvoorde challenges the benchmark, arguing that it prevents the goals of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive from being reached. A commercial edition of this dissertation will be published by Springer.
    • 30 ECJ 30 Apr. 2014, C-26/13 Kásler and Káslerné Rábai/OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt, ECLI:EU: C:2014:282, point 39.
    • 31 Otherwise, the text of Art. 39, para. 1, CESL, which speaks of the situation where offer and acceptance 'refer to conflicting standard terms' (emphasis added, MBML) would not make any sense.
    • 32 Cf. extensively M.B.M. LOOS, 'Standard Terms Regulation in the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law. Comment to Nils Jansen', Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 2012/4,
    • 34 The feasibility study was prepared by an Expert Group instigated by the European Commission to prepare a preliminary draft of, what is now, CESL. It is published by the European Commission as an annex to a report by the Commission and available online at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ contract/files/feasibility_study_final.pdf (last visited on 11 Jul. 2014).
    • 35 Cf. C. VON BAR & E. CLIVE (eds), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), Full edition, (Munich: Sellier, 2009), Comment A to Article II.-9:402 DCFR, p 629.
    • 36 In this sense also TH. PFEIFFER, 'Unfaire Vertragsbestimmungen', European Review of Private Law 2011, p (835) 848; MÖSLEIN 2012, pp 276-277.
    • 37 VON BAR & CLIVE 2009, Comment B to Art. II.-9:402 DCFR, p 630; see also MÖSLEIN 2012, p 277.
    • 38 See Art. 87 of the Feasibility Study.
    • 39 See amendment 156, introducing a new point ca to Art. 83, para. 2, CESL. The amended text is produced in: European Parliament, Texts adopted Part III at the sitting of Wednesday 26 Feb. 2014, P7_TA (2014)0159, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pub Ref=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0159+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN (last visited on 11 Jul. 2014).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from