Jurisdiction as regards a dispute arising out of credit agreements for natural persons from EU relating to immovable property

lost in the qualification “consumer contract”

Abstract

The notion of consumer contract is used frequently in various instruments of the EU law. Even though all these instruments aim at protecting the weaker party they have their own scheme and objectives pursued. Regulation 1215/2012 unlike Directive 2014/17 and Directive 2008/48 does not harmonise the substantive law on consumer contracts, but provides rules determining which court has jurisdiction to hear a case in civil and commercial matters. It strikes the balance between the interests of the weaker party and the legitimate expectations of the professionals and deviates from the definition of consumer contract of the Directives. The Bulgarian case law faces difficulties in the differentiation of consumer contract notion of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directives 2014/17/Directive 2008/48. The purpose of this article is to stress on the differences and to encourage the court to pay special attention to the logic and application of Regulation 1215/2012.

References:

Museva, Boryana. Vzaimodeystvie ili protivodeystvie mezhdu pravoto na ES i balgarskoto vatreshno pravo pri prilaganeto na Reglament Bryuksel ІA?. – God. SU. Yurid. fak., T. 86, 2019.

Museva, Boryana. Zashtitata na targoviyata vs. zashtitata na potrebitelite, svarzani dela S-585/08 i S-144/09. – Evropeyski praven pregled, 2011, № 1.

Natov, Nikolay, Boryana Museva, Yasmina Andreeva, Stanislav Yordanski, Teodora Tsenova, Dafina Sarbinova, Vasil Pandov, Zahari Yanakiev, Nikolay Bandakov, Tsvetan Krumov. Reglamentat Bryuksel І. Sofia: Siela, 2012.

Pandov, Vasil. Mezhdunarodna kompetentnost po grazhdanski i targovski dela. Sofia: Siela, 2018.

Rauscher, Thomas. Europäisches Zivilprozess-und Kollisionsrecht EuZPR/EuIPR, Kom mentar, 2011.