ECJ Ruling on Brussels Regulation and the Internet

13/12/10

The Grand Chamber of the ECJ has ruled that merely having a website which is accessible in another Member State does not constitute directing activities to that Member State for the purposes of Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels Regulation (Regulation 44/2001). Article 15 lays down special rules for consumer contracts, and provides that a consumer may sue a business in the consumer's own Member State if the business has directed its commercial or professional activities to that Member State.

In a judgment which will have significant implications for businesses and consumers across the EU, the ECJ has laid down a series of factors which may constitute evidence that a trader intends to direct its activities towards one or more other Member States. Features of a website which would constitute such evidence include mention of telephone numbers with the international code, use of a top-level domain name other than that of the Member State in which the trader is established (e.g. ‘.com' or ‘.eu'), and mention of an international clientele.

The judgment is here.