This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises. The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Ms Hamilton and Volksbank Filder eG concerning an application for annulment of a loan contract and repayment of the interest paid. The preliminary question concerns whether a measure which provides that the right of cancellation given by Article 5(1) of that directive is to expire one month after both parties have performed in full their obligations under a long-term loan contract, when the consumer has been given defective notice concerning the exercise of that right, may none the less be regarded as an appropriate consumer protection measure within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4 of that directive. The Court of Justice ruled that the doorstep selling directive must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is entitled to provide that the right of cancellation laid down in Article 5(1) of the directive may be exercised no later than one month from the time at which the contracting parties have performed in full their obligations under a contract for long-term credit.

Annelore Hamilton v. Volksbank Filder eG, Case C-412/06, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, 10 April 2008

BARONCINI, ELISA
2010

Abstract

This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises. The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Ms Hamilton and Volksbank Filder eG concerning an application for annulment of a loan contract and repayment of the interest paid. The preliminary question concerns whether a measure which provides that the right of cancellation given by Article 5(1) of that directive is to expire one month after both parties have performed in full their obligations under a long-term loan contract, when the consumer has been given defective notice concerning the exercise of that right, may none the less be regarded as an appropriate consumer protection measure within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4 of that directive. The Court of Justice ruled that the doorstep selling directive must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is entitled to provide that the right of cancellation laid down in Article 5(1) of the directive may be exercised no later than one month from the time at which the contracting parties have performed in full their obligations under a contract for long-term credit.
elisa baroncini
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11585/80421
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact