Directive 97/7 / EC (Distance Selling Directive)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
European Union flag

Directive 97/7 / EC

Title: Directive 97/7 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 20, 1997 on consumer protection when concluding distance contracts
Designation:
(not official) 		Distance Selling Directive
Scope: EU
Legal matter: Consumer law
Basis: EC Treaty , in particular Article 100a
Procedure overview: European Commission
European Parliament
IPEX Wiki
Come into effect: June 4th 1997
To be
implemented in national law by: 		June 4, 2000
Implemented by: Germany
Distance Selling Act
Replaced by: Directive 2011/83 / EU
Expiry: June 13, 2014
Reference: OJ L 144 of 4.6.1997, pp. 19-27
Full text Consolidated version (not official)
basic version
Regulation has expired.
Please note the information on the current version of legal acts of the European Union !

The Distance Selling Directive , more precisely Directive 97/7 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 20, 1997 on consumer protection for distance selling contracts , is the requirement of the European Community to regulate the states of the European Union , in particular to regulate consumer protection in distance selling contracts . As is usual with EC directives, the considerations in the first part of the legal text determine the context to other laws and agreements. The actual guideline is set out in the second part in 19 articles. The Distance Selling Directive was repealed by the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83 / EU with effect from June 13, 2014.

Implementation in Germany

Germany passed the Distance Selling Act in 2000 , which was transferred to the German Civil Code (BGB) two years later . The relevant standards are §§ 312b to 312f BGB.

The regulations are of particular interest to consumers in the mail order business. Here he has the opportunity to revoke contracts within a period of two weeks (Section 355 (1), sentence 1 of the German Civil Code). B. can be done simply by returning the goods (Section 355 Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 BGB). This enables him to carry out a largely risk-free inspection of the goods, because in the event of a cancellation the entrepreneur not only has to reimburse the purchase price and regularly reimburse the return costs (Section 357 (2) BGB). According to the now established case law (see e.g. judgment of the Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe of September 5, 2007, AZ 15 U 226/06), he must also repay his own shipping costs to the buyer.

However, because of the shipping costs often created controversy and also on the question of whether and to what extent the entrepreneur by the consumer according to § 357 para. 3 BGB compensation for a deterioration of the item request by the interim designated putting into use of or with such a claim against the just can offset said claims of the consumer. The involvement of a lawyer is often hardly worthwhile for the individual consumer because of the small amounts involved. This is where consumer protection organizations can help. Sometimes it is enough for the organizations to inform the company concerned about the legal situation. If necessary, these organizations can also enforce consumer rights against the companies in court.

Implementation in Austria

The Distance Selling Act was a federal law announced in 1999 to implement the Distance Selling Directive , which changed the Consumer Protection Act - above all Sections 5a to 5j were inserted -, the Federal Act against Unfair Competition and the Product Liability Act . These changes came into effect between October 1, 1999 and January 1, 2001. On April 29, 2014, the National Council passed the Consumer Rights Directive Implementation Act , which left only the last article of Sections 5a to 5j of the Consumer Protection Act as a new Section 5c and to that extent repealed the Distance Selling Act . In its place came the Law on Distance and Foreign Business, contained as Article 4 .

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ cf. the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 3 September 2009 and the Opinion of Advocate General Verica Trstenjak of 18 February 2009 in case C-489/07.
  2. ↑ Federal Law Gazette I 185/1999 (PDF).
  3. ↑ Federal Law Gazette I No. 33/2014