European Court of Justice: Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts allows stricter consumer protection rules by member states

The Tribunal Supremo (Spanish Supreme Court) asked the Court of Justice, in essence, whether the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts precludes a Member State from providing in its legal system, for the benefit of consumers, for an assessment as to the unfairness of contractual terms which relate to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract or to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods to be supplied in exchange, on the other hand, even in the case where those terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language.

In judgement of June 3, 2010 in Case C-484/08 (Caja de Ahorros v. Ausbanc), ECJ held that the Directive carried out only a partial and minimum harmonisation of national legislation concerning unfair terms, while recognising that Member States have the option of affording consumers a higher level of protection than that for which the Directive provides. Member States therefore may retain or adopt, throughout the area covered by the Directive, rules which are stricter than those provided for by the Directive. Consequently, the Directive does not preclude national legislation which authorises judicial review as to the unfairness of contractual terms which relate to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract or to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods to be supplied in exchange, on the other hand, even in the case where those terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language.

Source: ECJ press release No 52/10 of June 3, 2010

German BGH: Airline bonus points

Germany Highest Court (BGH) ruled yesterday about the forfeiture of Airline bonus points (BGH 28.01.2010, Xa ZR 37/09):

Plaintiff was a participant of the flight awards program of the defendant airline. Under this program, travelers were able to collect a number of bonus points dependent on the route booked that could be redeemed within five years after the flight for bonus tickets. In the conditions of the program (CoP), the defendant retained the right to terminate the program at any time. In September 2007 defendant announced the ending of the rewards program by 31 October 2007 and admitted to the participants the option to transfer the points collected to another airline’s program. At the same time defendant terminated plaintiff’s participation contract and informed the plaintiff that he may book flights on the bases of the current CoP until 30 April 2008 only and which shall take place until 31 October 2008.

Plaintiff considered that defendant’s CoP shall be null and void in this regard and he claimed that he could still redeem the bonus points within five years after the flight date.

Both, the district court and the court of appeal dismissed the action and considered the CoP of the defendant still to be in force and binding.

The BGH did not follow this point of view. Defendant may terminate the flight rewards program at any time, however, in the case at hand the CoP providing a right to decrease the period of the initial validity of the bonus points of up to one tenth can not be justified.

This may cause difficulties for the defendant when booking appropriate bonus flights only six months in advance. Bonus points are a not a voluntary service provided by the defendant, since the bonus points are a kind of discount agreed which is applicable for future flights. The defendant is obliged to grant bonus points for flights that have taken place after termination the program, unless they have been booked prior to its termination on the basis of the CoP.

The offered transfer to another airline’s awards program is not an alternative, because it is not equivalent in every respect.

Germany: German courts have jurisdiction over airlines in other member states in regard to unfair terms

In a decision dated July 9, 2009, German Supreme Court (BGH) held that German Courts have jurisdiction over over an airline in another member state in regard to a law suit filed by a consumer protection association to cease in order to interdict the use of unfair terms in General Conditions of Contract.

However, whereas with regard to such infringement of consumer interests, the law of that state applies in which due to the statement of claim collective consumer interestes have been affected, validity of such General Conditions of Contract was subject to the law governing the contract.

BGH decision Xa ZR 19/08 of July 9, 2009 available for download in German here>>.