Markéta Selucká (ed.)
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
IN LAW AND PRAXIS
Workshop Proceedings
MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA
PRÁVNICKÁ FAKULTA
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS BRUNENSIS
________________________________
IURIDICA
Editio Scientia 	 vol. 528
PUBLICATIONS
OF THE MASARYK UNIVERSITY
_________________________________
theoretical series, edition Scientia
File No. 528
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS
AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION
IN LAW AND PRAXIS
Workshop Proceedings
Masaryk University
Brno 2015
Citation:
SELUCKÁ, Markéta (ed.). Off-Premises contracts and consumer protection in law and praxis : Workshop
proceedings [online]. 1. st. ed. Brno : Masaryk University, Faculty of Law, 2015. [cit. 2015-30-06]. 67 p.
Publications of the Masaryk University, theoretical series, edition Scientia; File No. 531.
ISBN 978-80-210-7883-3. Dostupné z: http://science.law.muni.cz/content/cs/open-access/monografie/
National Library of the CR – Cataloguing in Publication data
Off-Premises contracts and consumer protection in law and praxis : Workshop proceedings / Markéta Selucká
(ed.). – 1. st. edition. Brno: Masaryk University, 2015. - 67 pages. Publications of the Masaryk University,
theoretical series, edition Scientia; File No. 531. ISBN 978-80- 210-7883-3 [eBook].
347* 346.548*(437.1/3)* (4)
- private law
- consumer protection
- Czech Republic
- Europe
- workshop proceedings
- eBook
347 – Private Law [16]
Reviewers:	 prof. JUDr. Jan Hurdík, DrSc.
	 Assoc. prof. JUDr. Monika Jurčová, Ph.D.
Editor: Assoc. prof. JUDr. Markéta Selucká, Ph.D.
© 2015 Masaryk University
ISBN 978-80-210-7883-3
5
Table of Contents
Foreword............................................................................................................................7
Off-premises Consumer Contracts – National Report
for Austria Transposition of  the Directive 2011/83/EU
into Austrian Law........................................................................................................9
Cornelia Kern
I	Introduction..............................................................................................................10
II	 Extended transposition - the field of application..............................................11
III	Some specific question in the Austrian transposition........................................15
IV	The “Austrian” right of withdrawal......................................................................20
V	 Legal consequences for missing information......................................................21
Off-premises Consumer Contracts in Poland: Selected Issues.............23
Radosław Strugała
I	 Introductory remarks..............................................................................................23
II	 Regulatory options...................................................................................................24
III	Practical problems...................................................................................................27
IV	Right of withdrawal.................................................................................................29
V	 Cost of returning goods ........................................................................................30
VI	Conclusions..............................................................................................................31
Off-premises Consumer Contracts in Slovakia.............................................32
Peter Mészáros
I	Introduction..............................................................................................................32
II	 Transposition and national law..............................................................................33
III	Theme background.................................................................................................33
IV	Praxis directing.........................................................................................................34
V	 Current situation......................................................................................................36
VI	Level of consumer protection...............................................................................37
Off-premises Contracts in Germany..................................................................38
Frank Spohnheimer
I	 Transposition of the Directive on consumer rights
into the German Civil Code...................................................................................39
II	 Definition of off-premises contracts...................................................................40
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
6
III	Consumer protection through information........................................................43
IV	Consumer protection through withdrawal...........................................................44
V	 Consumer protection in civil proceedings...........................................................46
VI	Conclusion................................................................................................................47
The new Civil Code and Protection of  a Consumer Concluding
an Off-premises Contract......................................................................................48
Markéta Selucká
I	 The term “off-premises contract”........................................................................51
II	 Obligation to inform - basic method of consumer protection........................52
III	Withdrawal from the Contract...............................................................................55
IV	Conclusion................................................................................................................59
Off-premises Consumer Contracts and Selected Questions
of  Public Consumer Protection.........................................................................61
Jana Dudová
I	Introduction..............................................................................................................62
II	 Protection from misleading and aggressive commercial practices
according to the CPA for off-premises consumer contracts............................64
III	Conclusion................................................................................................................66
7
Foreword
Over the past few years, consumer protection in both the European Union
and the Czech Republic has developed rather interestingly. A new civil code
has become effective in the Czech Republic, which already contains transposition
of the directive on the rights of consumers, and all EU Member States
have also had to react to the need to incorporate the directive into their
respective private law. Besides this, Czech society was shocked by the documentary
film by director Silvia Dymáková called “Šmejdi”, which in its
nakedness pointed out the aggressive practices of false entrepreneurs preying
upon the most vulnerable members of our society - senior citizens.
The submitted post-conference journal presents papers featured
at the workshop “OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS”, held at the Faculty of Law
of Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic on November 19, 2014,
and dedicated to finding a legal solution for protecting especially threatened
groups of consumers in the CR. The aim of the workshop held within
the framework of fulfilling the project “Socio-legal aspects of protecting
especially threatened groups of consumers” was to compare the legislation
and practice in the CR with those in neighboring EU Member States
(Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria and Germany), and to develop a professional
legal discussion on protection of threatened groups of consumers,
which could be implemented by both private law and public law.
The project researchers are pleased that the  workshop met with great
interest of the professional public, and that the discussion accompanying
the entire social afternoon resulted in interesting ideas and proposals for
possible further cooperation of individual participants. Relating cooperation
of foreign participants and experts from practice (especially from the Czech
Trade Inspection Authority) should culminate in elaboration of an integral
monograph attempting to answer questions of a general sociological and
humanistic basis of protection of especially threatened subjects of legal
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
8
relationships, and provide an analysis and legal teleological consideration
over legislation ensuring consumer protection in EU Member States, and
therefore also in the CR.
If the workshop contributed to increasing the legal protection of the consumer
in the CR, or at least indicated possible legal means of resolution and
generated discussions regarding such solutions, it has fulfilled its sense and
purpose.
On behalf of the research team
Markéta Selucká
9
Off-premises Consumer Contracts –
National Report for Austria Transposition
of the Directive 2011/83/EU into Austrian Law
Cornelia Kern
University of Graz, Faculty of Law, Austria
cornelia.kern@uni-graz.at
Abstract
The article is going to be on particular questions which arose from the transformation
of the Directive 2011/83/EU for the Austrian legislator.
As the Directive is a total harmonized Directive, generally there is little scope
left. So the focus of this article is about some questions that come along
with an extended transposition of the Directive (concerning only the field
of application). One special problem, that finally shall be discussed, is that
the Austrian legislator has decided to keep its previous right of withdrawal
that corresponds to the Doorstep Selling Directive 85/577/EEC. This
right of withdrawal still remains applicable in cases which are not covered
by the field of the Directive additionally to the new right of withdrawal.
Concluding, the legal consequences if the trader fails to attend to one of his
information duties are going to be mentioned.
Keywords
Austria; Total Harmonization; Extended Transposition; Term “Consumer”;
“Austrian” Right of Withdrawal; Two Types of a Right of Withdrawal; Legal
Consequences for Missing Information.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
10
I	 Introduction
Following its proposal, the transposition of the Directive 2011/83/EU has
received a lot of attention1
in Austria already and even more after its publication
in 2011. Hence, the focus of this article is not going to be on general
questions which have already been discussed extensively in Austria in connection
with the directive itself – for instance the criticism about the considerable
obligations to inform the consumer or the questions about the right
of withdrawal – but refers to the particular difficulties which arose from
the transformation of the directive for the Austrian legislator.
The Directive 2011/83/EU was transposed into Austrian law through
the “Verbraucherrecht-Richtlinien-Umsetzungsgesetz” (VRUG) [ConsumerRights-Directive-Transposition-Law],
BGBl I 2014/13 [Federal Law Gazette] from
26 May 2014. So the Austrian transformation was delayed five months2
but
came into force in time on 13 June 2014. With the transposition the legislator
adopted the Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (ABGB) [General Civil Law
Code]3
and the Konsumentenschutzgesetz (KSchG) [Consumer Protection Law]4
and additionally created a new law, the Fern- und Auswärtsgeschäftegesetz
(FAGG) [Distance and Off-Premises Contracts Law].
Until then the transposition of both the Doorstep Selling Directive 85/577/
EEC and the Distance Selling Directive 97/7/EC had been included
1	 See e.g. Jud/Wendehorst (Ed.), Neuordnung des Verbraucherrechts in Europa? Zum
Vorschlag einer Richtlinie über die Rechte der Verbraucher (Vienna 2009); Bydlinski/
Lurger (Ed.), Die Richtlinie über die Rechte der Verbraucher (Vienna 2011); Stabentheiner/
Cap, Die neue Verbraucherrechte-Richtlinie. Werdegang, Geltungsbereich, „klassisches“
Verbraucherschutzrecht“, ÖJZ (Österreichische Juristen-Zeitung) 2011, p. 1045; Lerm,
Die Verbraucherrechte-Richtlinie im Widerspruch zur Kompetenzordnung des europäischen
Primärrechts, GPR (Zeitschrift für das Privatrecht der Europäischen Union)
2012, p. 166; Feuchtinger, Das neue Verbraucherrechte-Richtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetz,
SWK (Steuer- und Wirtschaftskartei) 2014, p. 840; Hechenblaickner/Skarics,
Regierungsvorlage zum Verbraucherrechte-Richtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetz-VRUG, ZFR
(Zeitschrift für Finanzmarktrecht) 2014, p. 148; Kolmasch, Das VerbraucherrechteRichtlinie-Usmetzungsgesetz,
Zak (Zivilrecht aktuell) 2014, p. 126; Schoditsch,
Neues im Konsumentschutzrecht – Die Umsetzung der RL über die Verbraucher
in Österreich, RZ (Österreichische Richterzeitung) 2014, p. 214; Pierer, Umsetzung
der Verbraucherrechte-Richtlinie, JAP (Juristische Ausbildung und Praxisvorbereitung)
2014/2015, p. 40.
2	 Cf. Article 28 of the Directive.
3	 JGS Nr. 948/1811 [Justizgesetzsammlung Nummer - Collection of  laws of  the judiciary number].
4	 BGBl Nr. 140/1979 [Bundesgesetzblatt Nummer – Official gazette of  the federal law number].
Workshop Proceedings
11
in the KSchG, however, this time the Austrian legislator chose another way.
Some regulations like the general information requirements under Article 5
of the Directive 2011/83/EU and other general contract law rules were
transposed into the KSchG whereas the new regime of distance selling
and off-premises contracts was excluded from the general KSchG. The
reason for this divided transposition was – as can be seen in the material
of the legislative process – that it would not be appropriate to integrate
the new regime of distance and off-premises contracts into the more compact
KSchG, because due to a centralisation and standardisation of the two
distribution types, the new rules are more extensive than the old ones
(Directives 85/577/ECC and 97/7/EC). In comparison the newly created
“Bundesgesetz über Fernabsatz- und außerhalb von Geschäftsräumen
geschlossene Verträge (Fern- und Auswärtsgeschäfte-Gesetz – FAGG)”
[Federal Law of  Distance Selling and Off-Premises Contracts] offers enough space
to transpose the new regime systematically.5
In my opinion, the fragmentation and complication of consumer protection
in Austria, which go along with this divided transposition, are not desirable
from the point of view of the consumer.6
Whereas on the EU level, the legislative
authority tries to  consolidate at  least some directives in  the  field
of consumer protection, the legislator in Austria acts exactly contrarily and
spreads consolidated rules to different laws. From my point of view, this
makes it more difficult for the consumer (as well as for the trader) to find
out about and understand his rights and obligations.
II	 Extended transposition - the field of application
In the  definite transposition, Austria has decided to  maintain its wider
definition of the “consumer” as it is described in § 1 KSchG. The same
approach has already been taken in transpositions of other directives. In so
5	 ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25.GP 4 et seq. [Erläuterungen zur Regierungsvorlage, Beilage Nummer
89, 25. Gesetzgebungsperiode, Seite folgende – Government proposal, attachment no. 89, 25th
period
of  legislature, pp. 4 et seq.].
6	 Cf. also Kathrein, Neues Konsumentenrecht. Verbraucherrechte-Richtlinie-
Umsetzungsgesetz – VRUG, ZVR (Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht) 2014, p. 184
(185) and Cap, Umsetzung der Verbraucherrechte-Richtlinie. Das neue Fern- und
Auswärtgeschäfte-Gesetz, ÖJZ (Österreichische Juristen-Zeitung) 2014, p. 707, who
argue for a total reform oft he Austrian laws of consumer protection.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
12
doing, Austria has used the permission of extension of the total harmonised
Directive7
as mentioned in Recital (13), which means that unlike suggested
by the Directive, also contracts involved in business start-ups and, under
specific conditions, contracts of  associations and condominium owners’
communities can be understood as consumer contracts.8
The legislator has moreover used the option of Article 3 (2) of the Directive
and has decided no to apply the Directive to off-premises contracts for
which the payment to be made by the consumer does not exceed EUR 50.
This regulation is supposed to accommodate the small economic dimension
of these contracts which do not need an extensive consumer protection.9
Furthermore, the optional rules in Article 7 (4) of the Directive about services
for the purpose of carrying out repairs or maintenance which are
immediately performed have been transposed into Austrian law. Actually,
the Austrian legislator did not agree with the EU legislator who intended
these specific rules to be a facilitation with regard to the information requirements
or at least he considered the facilitation as very small but on demand
of the Austrian Economic Chamber in the end the Article was transposed
in § 6 FAGG into Austrian law.10
The other exceptions of Article 3 of the Directive that concern off-premises
contracts were transposed into Austrian law without any content-related
extension. An extended transposition would not have reached a consensus
and moreover, for some fields there already exist specific rules in Austrian
law which protect the consumer anyway. In the materials of the legislative
process, for example the Bauträgervertragsgesetz [Law for Contracts of  building
project organiser] (respective to the exception of Article 3 [3] point [f]
of  the  Directive 2011/83/EU respectively § 1 par.  2 point [7] FAGG)
is mentioned.11
7	 Article 4 of the Directive.
8	 ErläutRV89BlgNR25.GP 5;cf.to thisquestionas wellPeintinger,DerVerbraucherbegriff
im Lichte der Richtlinie über die Rechte von Verbrauchern und des Vorschlages für ein
Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht–Plädoyer für einen einheitlihen europäischen
Verbraucherbegriff, GPR, 2013, p. 24.
9	 § 1 (1) 1 FAGG. See also ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 5.
10	 ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 6.
11	 ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 23.
Workshop Proceedings
13
The definitions of Article 2 of the Directive where subject to a different
approach. For some definitions, there was no  need for integration into
Austrian law because the Austrian understanding of the respective terms
was considered to correspond to the comprehension of the Directive (e.g.
Article 2 [4] of the Directive “goods made to the consumer’s specifications”).
On the other hand some terms such as “sales contract” and “service contract”
in Article 3 (5) and (6) of the Directive were not included into the list
of § 3 FAGG by reason of fundamental distinctions from the classic understanding
of these terms in Austrian law. In contrast to the Austrian understanding
in the Directive a contract including sales-related as well as servicerelated
elements is always a sales contract.12
According to the Austrian perspective,
it depends on which elements predominate. Only if the elements
of the transfer of ownership of goods outweigh the service elements, a sales
contract is concluded. Otherwise a contract with mixed elements can also
be a service contract.13
For systematic reasons, the Austrian legislator did not
adopt the understanding of the Directive in the definitions of § 3 FAGG
but respected the distinctions where there are different legal consequences
on the one hand for sales contracts and contracts having as its objects both
goods and services and on the other hand for service contracts. For example
§ 11 FAGG in the transposition of Article 9 of the Directive determines
different dates for the commencement of the period to withdraw from
a distance or off-premises contract for sales contracts in accordance with
the Directive and for service contracts respectively.14
As mentioned above the term “consumer” is transposed in an extended
way into Austrian law whereas the conventional Austrian understanding
of the term “trader” (§ 1 par. 1 KSchG) is narrower than in the Directive:
In Article 2 (2) of the Directive a trader is not only a “person […] who
is acting […] for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession”
but also “any other person acting in his name or on his behalf”.
As it is the case for contracts including elements of both sales and service
12	 See Article 3 (5) of the Directive: „including any contract having as its object both goods
and services“.
13	 See e.g. Welser, Grundriss des bürgerlichen Rechts, volume 2, Schuldrecht Allgemeiner
Teil, Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil, Erbrecht, 13th
edition (Vienna 2007) p. 255.
14	 Cf. ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 24, 33 f.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
14
contracts, the Austrian legislator adopted the understanding of the Directive
with regards to its broader definition of “trader”, (reffering to his representatives
as well), only in particular rules where the different understanding
is decisive. So for example in the definition of “off-premises contracts”
in § 3 par. 1 point (c) and (d) FAGG – which is in other respects almost
identical with the definition in Article 3 (8) of the Directive – the rule refers
to both traders and representatives. In my point of view, it is incomprehensible,
however, why such a supplement is not admitted as well in § 3 (1) point
(a) FAGG. According to point (a) of this rule, an “off-premises contract”
is – just as in the equivalent Article 2 (8) point (a) of the Directive – any
contract between the trader and the consumer “concluded in the simultaneous
physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which
is not the business premises of the trader” [“der bei gleichzeitiger körperlicher
Anwesenheit des Unternehmers und des Verbrauchers an einem Ort geschlossen wird,
der kein Geschäftsraum des Unternehmers ist”]. Both in point (a) and in point
(c) of Article 2 (8) of the Directive, an off-premises-situation is described
in which “in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer”
a contract is concluded, but whereas in point (a) this is done immediately,
according to point (c) the contract is signed “on the business premises
of the trader or through any means of distance communication immediately
after the consumer was personally and individually addressed” [“in den
Geschäftsräumen des Unternehmer oder durch Fernkommunikationsmittel (…) unmittelbar
nachdem der Verbraucher (…) persönlich und individuell angesprochen wurde”].
While the Directive uses both times the identical expression “in the simultaneous
physical presence of the trader and the consumer” [“bei gleichzeitiger
körperlicher Anwesenheit des Unternehmers und des Verbrauchers”], the Austrian
legislator makes a  reference to  the  representative in  § 3 par.  1 point (c)
FAGG but not in point (a). In accordance with the Directive point (a) of § 3
(1) FAGG has to refer as well to both the trader and his representative and
moreover has to include any contract that is not concluded by the trader
himself but “trough any person acting in his name or on his behalf”15
.
15	 Cf. Article 2 par. 2 of the Directive.
Workshop Proceedings
15
However, the fact that the representative is shown separately in the other
point suggests a different understanding. In all remaining cases, the definitions
of § 3 FAGG are congruent with those of the Directive.16
III	 Some specific question in the Austrian transposition
The information requirements according to Article 6 of the Directive were
also transposed almost identically into § 4 FAGG. Only in some cases, terms
of the Directive were adapted to the Austrian terminology for better understanding.
So  for example the  information requirements about “identity”
[“Identität”] and “trading name” [“Handelsname”] were transposed as “Name”
[“name”] and “Firma” [a  specific Austrian expression for “trading name” which
is expressed in the German Version of  the Directive as “Handelsname”]. At some
other points the  information requirements of  the  Directive were either
combined17
in one subitem or subdivided18
into two or more.
Article  7 (1) and (2) of  the  Directive about the  formal requirements
of the information for off-premises contracts which the trader has to give
to the consumer before he is bound by the contract (Article 6 of the Drictive)
and the obligation of the trader “to give the information to the consumer
on paper, or if the consumer agrees, on another durable medium” are transposed
into § 5 FAGG.19
The regulations of Article 7 (3) of the Directive
about the requirement of an express request of the consumer if he “wants
the performance of service or the supply of water, gas or electricity, where
they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, or of district
heating to begin during the withdrawal period” is transposed into § 10
FAGG together with the almost identical regulation for distance selling
contracts (Article 8 [8] of the Directive). The Austrian legislator intended
to emphasise this regulation by putting it ahead of the rules of the right
of withdrawal (§ 11 et seqq. FAGG). Of course, the Directive’ distinction
between of off-premises contracts, where the “express request” has to be
“on a durable medium”, and distance selling contracts, in relation to which
16	 Cf. ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25.GP 24 ff.
17	 E.g. § 4 par. 1 (3) FAGG that combines Article 6 par. 1 point (c) and (d) of the Diretive.
18	 E.g. § 4 par. 1 (4) and (5) FAGG which transpose together Article 6 par. 1 point (e)
of the Directive.
19	 Cf. ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 28.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
16
the Directive does not mention anything about a durable medium is also
transposed in  § 10 FAGG. The legal consequences of  such an  express
request as well as the legal consequences that occur when such an express
is missing are transposed into § 16 par. 1 FAGG (Article 14 [3] and [4] point
[a] subpoint [ii] of the Directive). In contrast to the Directive, the Austrian
legislator did not see a requirement of a normative clarification of cases
where the consumer shall bear no costs for the performance of services
or the supply of some specific resources during the withdrawal period (as
in Article 14 [4] of the Directive). Although § 16 par. 1 FAGG is almost identical
with Article 14 (3) of the Directive which determines only under which
circumstances the consumer shall pay to the trader an proportional amount
when he exercises his right of withdrawal, in the opinion of the Austrian
legislator, a normative clarification about in which cases the consumer shall
bear no costs – as the Directive clarifies in Article 14 (4) – was not necessary.
In the Austrian transposition, this results only from § 16 par. 4 FAGG which
transposes Article 14 (5) of the Directive and determines that the consumer
shall not incur any liability when he exercises his right of withdrawal except
for cases of this Article.20
The rules of the right of withdrawal in Article 9 et seqq. of the Directive
were transposed into § 11 et seqq. FAGG. At this point, the Austrian legislator
had to make some systematic and conceptual changes to adapt the rules
to Austrian law. However, these adaptations are not supposed to provide
any change with regard to the content of these rules. An example is the use
of the specific Austrian term “Rücktrittsrecht” instead of “Widerrufsrecht”
(“right of withdrawal”) as it is called in the Directive. However, the legislator
notes in the material of the legislative process that a mistake in the terminology
(e.g. in the case of information requirements about these rights given
by the trader or in case of the consumer’s decision to withdraw, if the consumer
or the trader speaks of “Widerruf” instead of “Rücktritt”) shall not
have any effect. Another example is the regulation of the withdrawal period.
In contrast to other Directives about consumer protection the Directive
defines the  withdrawal period only in  terms of  its ending. In  comparison,
the Austrian legislator determines the starting point and the duration
20	 Cf. ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 38.
Workshop Proceedings
17
of the period in accordance with the other Directives of consumer protection.
At some other points, there was no need for a particular transposition,
as for example for the effects of withdrawal according to Article 12
of the Directive. According to Austrian understanding, it is an immanent
legal consequence of a withdrawal that the obligations of the parties to perform
the contract terminates with the exercise of the right to withdraw.21
Article 13 and Article 14 (1), (2) and (5) of the Directive about the obligations
of the trader and the consumer in the event of withdrawal were
transposed almost identically into in § 15 FAGG. Par. 3 and 4 of Article 14
of the Directive were transposed separately into § 16 FAGG. These rules
about the particularity of the right of withdrawal in case of contracts where
the consumer requests a performance of service or the supply of some
specific resources during the withdrawal period has already been discussed
above with reference to Article 7 (3) of the Directive.
Another special regulation about the right of withdrawal refers to the particularity
of a withdrawal in connection with the supply of digital content
which is not supplied on a tangible medium. This special scheme is transposed
into § 16 par. 3 FAGG. The Austrian legislator considered this regulation
of the Directive as strongly incoherent and was confronted with great
problems in the transposal legislation. The rules about digital content which
is not supplied on a tangible medium are based22
on the particular rules about
the performance of service or of the supply of some specific resources
during the withdrawal period, but at the same time there is a substantial discrepancy
between the two regulations.23
Therefore, the Directive is inconsistent
in the opinion of the Austrian legislator because unlike in Article 7
(3) of the Directive24
about the contracts of service and of the supply
of some specific resources where it is stated that the consumer has to make
an express request to start the performance during the withdrawal period,
a similar rule for the contracts of the supply of digital content which is not
21	 Cf. ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 38.
22	 Cf. the legislative process: http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.
cfm?CL=de & DosId=197477#411747 and Stabentheiner, Das neue Fern- und
Auswärtsgeschäfte-Gesetz, VbR (Zeitschrift für Verbraucherrecht) 2014, p. 117.
23	 Cf. as well Lurger, Widerrufsrechte, in Bydlinski/Lurger (Ed.), Die Richtlinie über die
Rechte der Verbraucher (Vienna 2012) pp. 53 (89 et seq.).
24	 Or rather Article 8 par. 8 of the Directive for distance selling contracts.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
18
supplied on a tangible medium does not exist. For this kind of digital content
the requirement of an express consent arises only indirectly from Article 14
(4) point (b) and Article 16 point (m) of the Directive. However, the relation
between Article 14 (4) point (b) and Article 16 point (m) of the Directive
is unclear. Article 14 (4) point (b) determines under which conditions
the consumer shall bear no costs for the supply of digital content which
is  not supplied on  a  tangible medium while article 16 point  (m) defines
in which cases the consumer does not have any right of withdrawal (in case
of such a digital content). These two regulations show a significant discrepancy
because according to Article 16 point (m) the compliance of two conditions
only already accounts for a loss of the right of withdrawal: on the one
hand, the prior express consent of the consumer and on the other hand, his
acknowledgement that he thereby loses his right of withdrawal. In contrast,
Article 14 (4) point (b) subpoint (iii) demands (alternatively) the fulfilment
of a third condition for the case that the consumer shall not bear any costs.
This third condition is that “the trader has failed to provide confirmation
in accordance with Article 7 (2) and Article 8 (7)” of the Directive.
The Austrian legislator wondered – as it was stated as a question by some
authors too25
 – if this third condition of Article 14 (4) point (b) subpoint
(iii) has to be understood as well as third condition of Article 16
point (m). Otherwise the regulation of Article 14 (4) point b subpoint
(iii) of the Directive would not have a field of application in the opinion
of the Austrian legislator because this subpoint (iii) of Article 14 (4) point
(b) would relieve the consumer of his duty of payment in a case in which
the consumer would not at all have a right of withdrawal.26
The Austrian legislator decided not to leave this rule without any applicability
and interpreted the Directive in such a way that the requirement
of  a  confirmation of  the  consumer’s  prior express consent (Article  7
[2]27
) is a condition for the loss of the right of withdrawal as well. So in
the Austrian transposition into § 18 par. 1 (11) FAGG the consumer loses
his right of withdrawal in case of performance during the withdrawal period
25	 See e.g. Unger, Die Richtlinie über die Rechte der Verbraucher. Eine systematische
Einführung, ZEuP (Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht) 2012, pp. 270 (301 et seq.).
26	 Cf. ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 39 f.
27	 Or rather Article 8 (7) for distance selling contracts.
Workshop Proceedings
19
only it the following three conditions are fulfilled: his express consent, his
acknowledgement that thereby he loses his right of withdrawal and a provided
confirmation within the meaning of § 5 par. 2 FAGG (which corresponds
to Article 7 [2] of the Directive28
). Is one of these conditions is not
fulfilled, and does the consumer consequently still have the right of withdrawal
during the withdrawal period, he is relieved of his duty of payment
according to § 16 par. 3 FAGG. In § 16 par. 3 FAGG, the three conditions
are not mentioned again because anyway, the consumer only has a right
of withdrawal if one of the three conditions of § 18 par. 1 (1) FAGG is not
fulfilled and each condition on its own can relieve the consumer of his duty
of payment.29
In the end, of course, only the ECJ (European Court of Justice) can clarify
the right understanding of the Directive rules. In my opinion, however,
the Austrian interpretation of the Articles of the Directive is plausible. The
regulations of the Directive about the performance of the supply of digital
content which is not supplied on a tangible medium during the withdrawal
period are badly formulated as a whole. From my point of view, particularly
in Article 16 point (m) of the Directive and in point (a) about contracts
of service it is not even clear that the regulations refer to a case in which
the performance starts during the withdrawal period because it is not particularly
mentioned, but obviously it has to be interpreted this way. And
also in Article 14 (4) point (b) of the Directive it seems that the consumer
is already relieved of his duty of payment if the trader has failed to provide
a confirmation according to Article 7 (2)30
of the Directive – irrespective
of a performance during the withdrawal period or even irrespective of his
withdrawal in general.31
So it seems that there are many questions about
these specific rules which have to be clarified by the ECJ.
28	 Or rather Article 8 (7) for distance selling contracts.
29	 Cf. ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 39.
30	 Or rather Article 8 (8) of the Directive for distance selling contracts.
31	 Cf. the formulation in subpoint (ii) of Article 14 (4) point (b) „or“ and the totally different
construction of point (a) of Article 14 (4) about contracts of service and of the supply
of some specific resources where the aspect of a performance during the withdrawal
period is not only mentioned in a subpoint (like in subpoint [i] of point [b]) but already
in the introduction passage that refers to all subpoints.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
20
Apart from the two already mentioned exceptions from the right of withdrawal;
the Austrian legislator has also transposed the other exceptions
of Article 16 of the Directive into § 18 FAGG without any difficulties. The
regulations of the Directive were transposed almost identically into Austrian
law. Only in  § 18 par.  1 (1) FAGG there is  another distinction between
the Directive and the Austrian transposition that is worth to be mentioned.
In this rule about the loss of the right of withdrawal in case of a service
contract in which the service has been fully performed, the Directive uses
the expression “express consent” [“ausdrückliche(…) Zustimmung”] in contrast
to the other rules about this specific case32
(Article 7 [3]33
and Article 14
[3] and [4] point [a] of the Directive) which call it an (“express”) “request”
[(“ausdrücklichee{n}”) “Verlangen”]. So unlike the other rules, Article 16 point
(a) of the Directive incomprehensibly uses the same expression that is used
for the case of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium.
In contrast to the Directive, the Austrian legislator stays with the expression
“request” [“Verlangen”] in § 18 par. 1 (1) FAGG as well. It has to be discussed
if this transposition causes a substantive change or if Article 16 point (m)
of the Directive has to be interpreted in terms of the other Articles anyway.
IV	 The “Austrian” right of withdrawal
Aside from the already discussed regime of a right of withdrawal for distance
selling and off-premises contracts, the Austrian legislator has decided
to additionally keep its previous right of withdrawal in § 3 KSchG that corresponds
to the Doorstep Selling Directive 85/577/EEC. This “Austrian”
right of withdrawal [Rücktrittsrecht “österreichischer Prägung”34
] still remains
applicable in cases which are not covered by the field of application of § 11
et seqq. FAGG (Articles 9 et seqq. of the Directive) because they fall under
the exceptions of § 1 par. 2 FAGG (Article 3 [3] of the Directive). However,
this old type of a right of withdrawal is adapted to the new withdrawal
regime with regard to duration and starting point of the withdrawal period
32	 These other rules refer in contrast to Article 16 point (a) of the Directive as well to contracts
about the supply of water, gas, or electricity, where they are not put up for sale
in a limited volume or set quantity, or of district heating.
33	 Or rather Article 8 (8) of the Directive for distance selling contracts.
34	 Cf. ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 34.
Workshop Proceedings
21
and as well to formal requirements but it differs regarding the information
that has to be provided by the trader and concerning the legal consequences
in the event of a withdrawal (particularly in terms of the costs of returning
or the liability for diminished value of the goods and performance during
the withdrawal period).35
The right of withdrawal according to § 3 KSchG
is always applicable (if a case does not fall under the FAGG) except for
the case in which the consumer initiated the conclusion of a contract. The
Austrian legislator kept this right of withdrawal because otherwise he feared
a pejoration of the consumer protection.36
These two different types of a right of withdrawal which are brought into
accordance in some points but strongly differ in other points complicate
the application for both the consumer and the trader. The situation of consumer
protection is complex and hardly understandable already and two
different types of the right of withdrawal make it still worse in my opinion.
Maybe a further extension of the field of application of the FAGG would
have been the better approach.
V	 Legal consequences for missing information
In addition, § 19 FAGG is worth mentioning. This rule prescribes administrative
penalties applicable to infringements of the information and confirmation
obligations of the trader. This rule is the only legal consequence
that was introduced by the Austrian legislator in transposition of Article 24
(1) of the Directive. In the opinion of the legislator there was no need for
other penalties because there are already other rules in Austrian Civil Law
or in the transposition law of other Directives, which are considered as sufficient.
In this regard the following legal consequences are possible according
to the Austrian legal system37
:
35	 Cf. ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 12 ff, 34, 38, cf. also Stabentheiner, Das neue Fern- und
Auswärtsgeschäfte-Gesetz, VbR (Zeitschrift für Verbraucherrecht) 2014, p. 71.
36	 ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 13.
37	 Cf. ErläutRV 89 BlgNR 25. GP 35; and as well Dehn, Allgmeine Informationspflichten
nach Art 5 des Vorschlags für eine Richtlinie über Rechte der Verbraucher, in Jud/
Wendehorst (Ed.), Neuordnung des Verbraucherprivatrechts in Europa? Zum Vorschlag
einer Richtlinie über Rechte der Verbraucher (Vienna 2009) pp. 41 (63 et  seq.);
Schwarzenegger, Informationspflichten, in Bydlinski/Lurger (Ed.), Die Richtlinie über die
Rechte der Verbraucher (Vienna 2012) pp. 25 (37 et seq.).
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
22
Is some information missing, especially an information about the prize
of the goods or services or – under certain conditions – about the main
characteristics of the goods or services, there might not be a consensus
between the parties and consequently not even a contract.
Does the consumer furthermore have no idea at all or a misconception
of the reality due to an infringement of the information duties by the trader,
the consumer has the right to contest or adapt the contract in accordance
with § 872 ABGB because in such a case, the trader has caused the con-
sumer’s error. An error about facts that have to be explained by the trader
by rights, is always considered a contestable error according to § 871 par. 2
ABGB.
In addition, a pre-contractual liability (culpa in  contrahendo) of the trader
is possible. The result of restitution in kind can be the same as in case of an
error. The contract can be adapted or contested.
Last but not least, competitors could bring an action against the trader who
infringes his information duties according to competition law.
ConclusionIt remains to be seen if the new regime will prove its usefulness
in praxis and if the consumer protection will improve through the new regulations.
So far, the Austrian Economic Chamber has only pointed out that
the pre-contractual information duties and the post-contractual obligations
of documentation shall be summarised in one single procedure. Particularly
for the case of an off-premises contract, the Economic Chamber recommends
the use of one single document and provides an appropriate standard
form for it.38
38	 Cf. Stabentheiner, Das neue Fern- und Auswärtsgeschäfte-Gesetz, VbR (Zeitschrift für
Verbraucherrecht) 2014, pp. 108 (113).
23
Off-premises Consumer Contracts
in Poland: Selected Issues
Radosław Strugała
University of Wrocław, Faculty of Law,
Administration and Economics, Poland
r. strugala@prawo.uni.wroc.pl
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to look at how the new Directive on consumer
rights (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights) has been transposed
into the Polish national law in the field of off-premises contracts.
Given the maximum harmonization nature of the Directive, the paper
is mainly concerned with these parts of the Directive in relation to which
the Member States enjoy some regulatory freedom. Thus it presents how
the regulatory options have been used by the national legislator. Moreover,
it aims at analyzing whether the new national legislation giving effect
to the Directive is likely to overcome practical problems and discrepancies
in interpretation that happened to arise when applying its predecessor, i.e.
the former regulation concerning off-premises contracts.
Keywords
Off–Premises Contract; Consumer; Trader; Full-Harmonization; Regulatory
Options; Information; Withdrawal; Transposition; Costs.
I	 Introductory remarks
The main aim of this paper, prepared for the purpose of the workshop “Offpremises
contracts and consumer protection in law and praxis”, held on 19th
November 2014 at Masaryk University in Brno, is to report on the current
state of consumer protection law in the field of doorstep contracts
in Poland. From the Polish perspective, the time of the workshop was a very
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
24
apt moment for a reflection on off-premises contracts. It fell exactly within
the period when the Polish law was at the eve of a new consumer protection
era that the Directive on consumer rights1
(hereinafter referred to as
the Directive) was meant to start. In contrast to the majority of Member
States, that to my best knowledge have transposed the Directive by the time
of the workshop, in Poland the transposition was still ahead. The national
legislation transposing the Directive, although passed in Parliament, has not
yet come into force2
. As a result, at the time of the workshop it was impossible
to tackle practical problems regarding the implementation of the new
consumer Directive, which conceivably was the intention of the hosts
of the workshop under the name “Off-premises Contracts and Consumer
Protection in Law and Praxis”. No information could be provided on how
the new consumer law is applied in Poland. Therefore, this paper is aimed
at giving an insight into how the Directive is actually transposed. Given
the maximum harmonization nature of the Directive, the paper is mainly
concerned with these parts of the Directive in relation to which the Member
States enjoy some regulatory freedom. Thus it presents how the regulatory
options have been used by the national legislator (Part I of the paper). To try
and meet the expectations of the practical aspects of off-premises contracts
phenomenon, a short review of problems that were likely to arise
when applying the previous regulation is also offered. Furthermore, some
speculations are made as to whether the national legislation giving effect
to the Directive is likely to overcome these problems or, conversely, prone
to give rise to new ones (Part II of the paper).
II	 Regulatory options
Technically the Directive is transposed into the Polish legal framework
partially by a separate piece of legislation, namely the Consumer Rights
Act3
and partially by the Civil Code itself. However, provisions concerning
1	 Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October
201 on consumer rights.
2	 It was brought into effect on the 25th of December, which makes the Polish transposition
delayed, as a new national legislation giving effect to the Directive was required
to be in place by the 13th of July.
3	 The Act on Consumer Rights of 30 May 2014 (Journal of Laws of 2014, item 827).
Workshop Proceedings
25
information for off-premises contracts, as well as provisions on the right
of withdrawal from contracts of this kind, are exhaustively enumerated
in the former act and therefore my focus will be entirely on this act. To give
a complete picture of how the Directive is transposed, some remarks
of the scope of the transposal are required. As mentioned before, the majority
of provisions contained in the Directive are full-harmonization measures.
Despite this, some deviations when transposing the Directive into national
legislation are also possible. For instance, the Directive leaves Member
States the option not to introduce corresponding national provisions to offpremises
contracts for which the payment to be made by the consumer does
not exceed 50 €. Also, it provides that Member States may define a lower
value in their national legislation. In fact, the Polish Consumer Rights Act
has used both these options by providing that its provisions shall not apply
to off-premises contracts where the consumer is liable to pay an amount not
exceeding 50 PLN.
Setting out detailed information that traders are to provide consumers with
is undoubtedly the core aim of the Directive. Despite this, it gives Member
States the option to introduce in their national legislation a simplified model
of pre-contractual information duties in respect to given off-premises
contracts. The option regards contracts where the consumer has explicitly
requested the services of the trader for the purpose of carrying out repairs
or maintenance for which the trader and the consumer immediately perform
their contractual obligations and where the payment to be made by the consumer
does not exceed 200 €. In respect to such contracts Member States are
free to provide in national legislation simplified pre-contractual information
requirements. Namely, Member States can limit information requirements
to the information enumerated in points b and c of Article 6 paragraph 1
and some information named in Article 7 paragraph 4 itself, which entails
that under limited duty to inform, the trader shall provide the consumer
only with the information about:
•	 the identity of the trader, such as his trading name;
•	 the geographical address at which the trader is established and
the trader’s telephone; number, fax number and e-mail address;
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
26
•	 information about the price or the manner in which the price is to
be calculated together with an estimate of the total price, on paper or,
if the consumer agrees, on another durable medium
and additionally, information referred to in points a, h and k of Article 6
paragraph 1, that is information about:
•	 the main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate
to the medium and to the goods or services;
•	 the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right
of withdrawal, as well as the model withdrawal form (if such a right
exists in given circumstances);
•	 the  information that the  consumer will not benefit from a  right
of withdrawal (where a right of withdrawal is not provided for
in accordance with Article 16) or the circumstances under which
the consumer loses his right of withdrawal.
The trader may however choose not to provide information on paper
or another durable medium if the consumer expressly agrees so.
The simplified information regime has been accepted and introduced into
the Article 16 of the Polish Consumer Rights Act. However, it is not to be
disregarded that the simplified model of information duties is applicable
only when the payment to be made by the consumer does not exceed 600
PLN which equals about 150 €. As a consequence, the wording of Article 16
of the Consumer Rights Act leaves no doubt that the relaxed information
regime applies to the off-premises contracts which meet collectively all
the prerequisites set out in it, namely to the off-premises contracts that both
are contracts for services mentioned before which the trader immediately
performs getting in return an immediate fulfillment of consumer’s contractual
obligations and additionally give rise to the consumer’s duty of payment
which does not exceed 600 PLN.
As far as other aspects of regulatory freedom are concerned, the Article 6 section
7 of the Directive deserves mentioning. It says that Member States may
maintain or introduce in their national law language requirements regarding
the contractual information, so as to ensure that such information is easily
understood by the consumer. In utilizing this option (Article 44 of Consumer
Rights Act), the Polish legislator amended the Polish Civil Code provisions
Workshop Proceedings
27
on pre-contractual duties concerning the contract for sales. According to this
amendment, if the purchaser is at the same time a consumer, the seller shall
provide him or her with clear, understandable and unambiguous information
in Polish which is sufficient to enable the purchased item to be used properly
and in full. It is to be done before the contract is concluded. Along with
Articles 7 and 7a of the Polish Language Act of 7 October 1999 the abovementioned
provision of the Civil Code spells out the national law language
requirements regarding the contractual information.
III	 Practical problems
Meaning of the notion “off-premises contract” (scope of application
of the consumer protection measures)
As to the meaning of off-premises contracts, the new legislation is far clearer
than the previous one. Article 2 of the Consumer Rights Act defines offpremises
contract as a contract between a trader and a consumer which is:
•	 concluded in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader
and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises
of the trader;
•	 a contract for which an offer was made by the consumer in the simultaneous
physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place
which is not the business premises of the trader;
•	 concluded on the business premises of the trader or through any
means of distance communication immediately after the consumer
was personally and individually addressed in a place which is not
the business premises of the trader in the simultaneous physical presence
of the trader and the consumer;
•	 concluded during an excursion organised by the trader with the aim
or effect of promoting and selling goods or services to consumers.
Additionally, the above-mentioned article gives a comprehensible definition
of how the term “business premises” is to be understood. Thus, it seems
to eliminate some doubts which are likely to arise under previous regulation.
For instance, in the Polish case law it was unclear whether a stall situated
within the premises of a mall can be viewed as business premises of a trader
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
28
who leases this stall from the mall, having the main place of business elsewhere.
In consequence, it was not clear either, whether a contract concluded
between such a trader and a consumer at the stall constituted an off-premises
contract to which consumer protection measures are applicable4
. Article 2
of the ConsumerRightsActseemsto castawayallsuchdoubts,as itmakesclear
that “business premises” are any immovable retail premises where the trader
carries out his activity on a permanent basis or any movable retail premises
where the trader carries out his activity on usual or permanent basis. This is in
line with the assumption expressed in the preamble of the Directive (recital
22), where it is highlighted that “business premises should include premises
in whatever form (such as shops, stalls or lorries) which serve as a permanent
or usual place of business for the trader. Market stalls and fair stands should
be treated as business premises if they fulfil this condition.”
However, during the public debate on the new consumer law, some doubts
were also raised regarding the notion of off-premises contract and consequently
the scope of application of the Consumer Rights Act. One of them
concerns the usual practice of formation of contracts for cellular telephone
services5
. In the process of formation of such contracts an offer
made by a trader is often delivered to a consumer by couriers and then
accepted by the consumer in presence of the courier but without direct
presence of the trader. In such circumstances, a question may arise, whether
a contract made in such a manner is a contract that falls within the scope
of the Consumer Rights Act. Similar doubts may arise as to cases in which
an offer was made by the consumer away from the premises of the trader
but the contract was entered into on premises. As said above, a contract
may be understood as 
an off-premises contract where an offer was made
by the consumer in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and
the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader, even
if the conclusion of the contract took place on the business premises. Is it
still an off-premises contract where the offer was accepted by a trader with
4	 See: Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi, 19. 03. 2007 r., III Ca 383/07.
5	 See: http://okablowani.pl/umowy-zawierane-na-odleglosc-oraz-poza-lokalem-
przedsiebiorstwa-w-nowej-ustawie-o-prawach-konsumenta/.
Workshop Proceedings
29
modifications (meaning that the contract was made as a result of the con-
sumer’s acceptance of the trader’s counteroffer)? This cannot be answered
when considering the mere wording of the Consumer Rights Act.
IV	 Right of  withdrawal
One of the most important aims for the EU legislator was to grant consumers
cooling off period. Consequently so it was for the Polish legislator
enacting Consumer Rights Act. The main problem that the new regulation
deals with are the differences in the starting point of the withdrawal
period. Allegedly that is one of the main factors which made the application
of the previous regulation troublesome. Under the Consumer Right Act
there are no differences as to the starting point of the withdrawal period
irrespective of whether a given contract is a distance contract or an offpremises
one. The extended (14-days) period within which a consumer
can change their mind and withdraw from the contract begins to run
from the day of the conclusion of the contract. However, for the supply
of goods it starts on the day on which the consumer receives the goods.
Similarly to previous regulation, the Consumer Rights Act provides some
exceptions to the right to withdraw. For instance, the withdrawal right
does not apply when the goods subject to a contract are bespoke or personalised.
Nonetheless, the exhaustive list of such exceptions (Article 38
of the Consumer Rights Act) seems more adequate than the one provided
in the former legislation. Among cases to which the right to withdraw
does not apply, the current list names contracts for the supply of goods
which are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly and contracts for the supply
of sealed goods which are not suitable for return due to health protection
or hygiene reasons and were unsealed after delivery. In contrast to the former
law, these exceptions to the withdrawal right are valid not only for distance
contracts but also for off-premises ones. This is a modification that,
beyond any question, calls for high praise. Under former law, traders operating
in the off-premises context were put under high risk of incurring losses
as a result of withdrawal from contracts for delivery of disposable products,
in case of which no one could repurchase the product after the execution
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
30
of withdrawal right. The new law prevents all kind of traders from incurring
such losses by removing unjustified inequality between traders entering into
distance and off-premises contracts.
V	 Cost of  returning goods
Manyquestionsare solvedby the transposalof the Article 14of the Directive.
When transposing it, Article 34 of Consumer Rights Act provides the time
limit for the consumer to send back or hand the goods over to the trader
in case of withdrawal. It also sets out a rule, according to which the consumer
shall only bear the direct cost of returning the goods and only provided that
they were properly informed by the trader about this burden. Both these
issues were dubious under the former regulation. The new legislation seems
to effectively cast aside doubts. As said above, it states that the consumer
shall only bear the direct cost of returning the goods. Although the term
“direct cost” is not clear from the outset, its interpretation proposed
in legal writing seems to be shared without reservation and was supported
by the Polish Office for Competition and Consumer Protection. According
to this interpretation the term “direct cost” refers to the cost of delivery,
that is for instance the amount paid by the consumer for shipping the goods
to their designated shipping address (with the exception of the supplementary
costs resulting from the consumer’s choice of a non-standard delivery
method). The cost of sending goods back to trader when executing the right
to withdrawal does not constitute “direct cost” and therefore is to be borne
by the consumer. In addition, the goods which, by their nature, cannot normally
be returned by post and have been delivered to the consumer’s home,
shall be collected by the trader at their expense. It can be easily noticed at this
point that the phrase “normally be returned by post” leaves the provision
open for discrepancies in interpretation. Seemingly the mere impossibility
to send goods in envelope is not enough to give rise to the trader’s duty
to collect goods at their expense.
Workshop Proceedings
31
VI	 Conclusions
In the light of what was said, one can reckon that the Consumer Rights Act
provisions are capable of solving many problems that were likely to arise
when applying the former regulation. The new off-premises law seems not
only to cast aside some doubts concerning the interpretation of its predecessor,
but also to be more adequate at some points. Unfortunately, the analysis
offered in this paper shows that among the Consumer Rights Act provisions
some remain vague. This constitutes a serious shortcoming of the new regulation,
as it leaves the regulation open for discrepancies in interpretation and
therefore may cause problems that the new law ought to eliminate instead
of causing.
32
Off-premises Consumer Contracts in Slovakia1
Peter Mészáros
University in Trnava, Faculty of Law, Slovak Republic
petermeszaros@orangemail.sk
Abstract
Contracts concluded between consumer and trader are the most often used
kind of contracts at all with regard to quantity. Therefore it is necessary
to regulate legal relations established upon this kind of contracts. Under
the present legal situation, consumer contracts are divided according more
criterions. One of the criterions is the way (how) and place (where) the contract
is concluded, a source of contracts coming into existence under this
division are off-premises contracts.
Keywords
off-premises contracts, consumer, trader, legal regulation, information, control
mechanism, transposition, protection, unfair commercial practices.
I	 Introduction
Legal regulation made by  the  European Union influences laws in  their
member states, the way of influence depends on the form of effect/applicability
of particular legal act. In case of directive, both types of applicability
can be taken into account – direct (in certain cases in order to protect
the rights of individuals) and indirect (transposition into national laws
by Member State). The Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending
Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC
1	 Príspevok bol vypracovaný v rámci grantového projektu VEGA č. 1/0505/14. „Princípy
nadnárodného civilného procesu, ich perspektívy a možnosti inšpirácie slovenskej právnej úpravy de lege
ferenda.“
Workshop Proceedings
33
and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
(hereinafter as “Directive on Consumer Rights”) was (indirectly) transposed
into Slovak national law by Act no. 102/2014 Coll. on Consumer Protection
related to selling or providing of services based on a distance contract,
or a contract concluded outside operational premises of the seller; as subsequently
amended (hereinafter as “Act no. 102/2014”). Not only Slovakia was
obliged to transpose the Directive on Consumer Rights, but all the other
Member States as well. Final current legal regulation on the national level
results from the European legislation (as a common factor) and the real situation
that is different in each of the Member State. Some legal instruments
and provisions were added as a response to emerged situation.
II	 Transposition and national law
Slovakia fully transposed Directive on Consumer Rights in conformity with
its Article 4. Fragmentation of consumer law on national level has been
shown also within this transposition – 11 acts dealing with consumer rights
were amended.
III	 Theme background
The most discussed situations coming under the scope of subject matter
have been the excursions organised by the trader with the aim or effect
of promoting and selling goods or services to the customer.
People (mostly (old age) pensioners or elderly people in general) are invited
to excursions, where the products acquired are promoted and offered for
sale. By “using” this opportunity and a lack of legal awareness, the trader
applies unfair and aggressive commercial practices – especially:
•	 creating the impression that the consumer cannot leave the premises
until a contract is formed,
•	 conducting personal visits to the consumer’s home ignoring the con-
sumer’s request to leave or not to return except in circumstances and
to the extent justified, under national law, to enforce a contractual
obligation,
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
34
•	 making unwanted and persistent solicitations mainly by telephone
in  circumstances and to  the  extent justified under national law
to enforce a contractual obligation,
•	 falsely stating that a product will only be available for a very limited
time, or that it will only be available on particular terms for a very
limited time, in order to elicit an immediate decision and deprive consumers
of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice,
•	 claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct when the trader is not;
or breaches consumer law in general by denying those rights that are given
and guaranteed by law.
IV	 Praxis directing
Even though situation has got better since Act no. 102/2014 came into
force (June 13, 2014), it is still not “problem-free”.
Follow from the Annual report of the Slovakia Trade Inspection (according
to the Act No. 128/2002 Coll. on State Control of Internal Market
in the Consumer Protection Issues this institution is an authority of internal
market surveillance; it is independent in its inspection and decisionmaking
activities; is the authority of the state administration and a nonprofit
making organisation, funded by  the  state budget) for year 2014
(http://www.soi.sk/files/documents/kcinnost/vs%202014.pdf), an excursions
organised by traders are perceived by consumers as a most negative
topic within an acting of traders at all. Consumers consider goods being
sold on excursions as low-grade and overpriced. It is also the field, which
amount of complaints decreased rapidly in, when compared years 2013 and
2014. Deficiency in trader’s acting was noticed in breaching of obligation
to announce intended excursion according to the section 11 par. 3 and 4 Act
no. 102/2014 properly and on time:
•	 announcement is not reported 20 days in advance to the Slovakia
Trade Inspection,
•	 time schedule of excursion is missing,
•	 price of selling goods is missing,
•	 amount of participants is missing,
•	 letter of invitation is not attached to the announcement,
Workshop Proceedings
35
•	 orientation of excursion is missing,
•	 name of selling goods is missing,
•	 framework of telephone invitation is missing.
Despite the positive effect effect of change of law and social situation –
broaden information, acting of traders has still not become legally suitable
and these unfair commercial practices have been identified:
•	 deceiving of consumers – omitting and not stating all necessary
information properly (e. g. “Invitation to non-binding meeting”)
•	 aggressive marketing that significantly disrupts freedom of  choice
or behaviour of consumer; it includes exerting pressure, pestering
(e. g. conducting personal visits, ignoring requests of consumer
to leave or no to return, making persistent and unwanted solicitations
by telephone),
•	 falsely claiming that a product can cure illness, dysfunction
or disability/malformations,
•	 “allure and change” advertisement,
•	 falsely stating that a product will only be available for a very limited
time, or that it will only be available on particular terms for a very
limited time, in order to elicit an immediate decision and deprive consumers
of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice,
•	 creating the false impression that the consumer has already won, will
win, or will on doing a particular act win, a prize or other equivalent
benefit, when in fact either there is no prize or other equivalent benefit,
or taking any action in relation to claiming the prize or other
equivalent benefit is subject to the consumer paying money or incurring
a cost,
•	 promoting a product similar to a product made by a particular manufacturer
in such a manner as deliberately to mislead the consumer into
believing that the product is made by that same manufacturer when
it is not.
In 2014, the Slovakia Trade Inspection ascertained new ways of law’s circumvent
such as making excursions not as a public. Traders name an excursions
as a “health lectures, days of health, healthy living style, advertising
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
36
campaign…” with no option to buy any goods so traders are not obliged
to announce them, catalogue is delivered after the presentation to consum-
er’s letterbox and he can order goods upon this invitatio ad offerendum.
When trader organizes an excursion, he is obliged to do so just in a place that
is registered as his business premises/establishments. Traders usually mark
a place of presentation but not every time it corresponds with their business
premises/establishments according to the records in the Trade Register. The
Slovak Trade Inspection closely cooperates with the Trade Licensing Office
in this issue, so they common can draw consequence if marked place does
not meet the requirements (space where trading is carried on – not just for
one time) for business premises/establishments according to the section 17
Act no. 455/1991 Trade Licensing Act as subsequently amended. Traders
let a special space to be written down into the Trade Register only a few
days before an excursion is to be held and after that it is erased; traders usually
moreover make their excursions in restaurants. This procedure is not
considered to be legitimate, in 2014 5 subjects have had their trading license
terminated because of violation as mentioned.
V	 Current situation
According to up-to-date situation in 2015, traders` acting gets better, despite
that there are cases when traders (but not so much of them as in the past)
violates law, specifically traders listed on web page http://www.soi.sk/sk/
Predajne-a-prezentacne-akcie/Upozornujeme-spotrebitelov/Upozornenie-
spotrebitelov-na-osobitne-zavazne-porusenia-povinnosti.soi?ind=: $1
•	 make excursions without prior announcement,
•	 sell goods for more than stated in letter of invitation,
•	 claim to pay the price right on the excursion,
•	 separate consumers from the others because of “drawing lots”,
•	 deny the right of withdrawal by making its delivery impossible (“hiding”
of trader).
Workshop Proceedings
37
VI	 Level of  consumer protection
Decreasing number of ascertained violation of law in subject issue indicates
that adopted measures meet their expectations. Not only act amendments,
but also the betterment of awareness (e. g. contributions in media) play their
roles in making situation better.
The level of consumer protection could be considered as sufficient. Legal
base (unfair commercial practices, information duties, right to withdrawal,
supervision) has established sufficient legal instruments that can help eliminate
and remove illegitimate intervention.
Upon the  author’s  point of  view, the  problematic issue is  fragmentation
of consumer law’s legal adjustment. If consumer wants to make his
claim, he has to use more than 3 acts (e. g. Act no 102/2014 to know that
he can withdraw from contract; Act no. 250/2007 Coll. on Protection
of Consumers and on changes and amendments to Act no. 372/1990 Coll.
on offences as subsequently amended to claim the right to adequate financial
compensation from the party, whose breach of a right or obligation stipulated
in this act and in separate regulations is capable of inflicting damage
to the consumer who successfully asserting a breach of right or obligation
stipulated in this Act and in separate regulations; Act no. 40/1964 Coll. Civil
Code as subsequently amended to know whether he is consumer or not…).
Another shortage can be seen in low knowledge of consumers, public education
is necessary. Last, but not least deficiency can be seen in disunity
of decision-making bodies, mainly courts.
All of mentioned represents reasons why enforcing of consumer rights
is still on a low grade.
38
Off-premises Contracts in Germany
Frank Spohnheimer
University of Hagen, Faculty of Law, Germany
Frank.Spohnheimer@fernuni-hagen.de
Abstract
In transposing Directive 2011/83/EU into the German Civil Code,
the German legislature has managed to avoid redundancies and adhered
to the principles of abstraction and precision. As a result however, the law
is not easily accessible for consumers and non-lawyers. This article investigates
consumer protection in light of the obligations of information and
the right to withdraw a declaration by comparing the new and former legal
rules.
Keywords
Consumer Protection; Transposition of the Directive on Consumer Rights;
Obligations to Inform; Right to Withdraw; Withdrawal; Accessible Law.
The transposition of the EU Directive on consumer rights has hardly been
acknowledged in these parts. Its implementation passed almost unnoticed.
This is somewhat surprising since the proposal for a Common European
Sales Law, which was made at roughly the same time, has found a much
more pronounced presence in the legal discussion. Although nobody knows
yet whether this proposal will ever become binding law, a number of monographs,
commentaries and articles have already been published. This has
the ring of a topsy-turvy world to it. After all, due to the practical importance
of distance contracts, the amendments provided by the Directive on consumer
rights influence daily life and consequently daily legal practice. And
even after the transposition of the provisions the Directive on consumer
rights called for, the discussion has stayed comparatively quiet. Three legal
education magazines published one, respectively two articles each on some
isolated questions regarding the new legal provisions. And in another legal
Workshop Proceedings
39
education magazine, an article was published in the spring of 2014 which
dealt with the then-current law, which was to expire on 12 June 2014. Only
here and there could some short remarks be found regarding what was soon
to enter into force. A standard commentary for students, academics and
legal professionals which was released at the same time does not comment
on the new provisions yet either.
The legislative implementation of the Directive on consumer rights, too,
was quiet and speedy.1
This is not a matter-of-course for the German legislature:
Sometimes Brussels has to threaten to open treaty violation proceedings
as it has happened at some previous occasions before the legislative
proceedings to transpose a directive had begun. Conversely, the Directive
on consumer rights was enacted within a mere nine months.
I	 Transposition of  the Directive on consumer rights
into the German Civil Code
The German legislature has remained true to the path taken in enacting
the modernization of the law of obligations in 2001. Despite demands
to the contrary,2
the transposition of the Directive on consumer rights was
not made in a separate codification dealing only with consumer contracts,
but within the German Civil Code, the BGB.
With regard to off-premises contracts, the relevant provisions can be found
in the general part of the BGB (definitions of consumer and trader, Sections
13 and 14 BGB), and in the general law of obligations, whereas the provisions
in the latter are found in non-consecutive places, namely in Sections
312 et seq. and in Sections 355 et seq. The former deal with the factual
preconditions that have to be met to apply the consumer protections rules.
They also standardize the basic duties to inform and the right to withdraw.
The latter provisions deal with the  question of  how the  right to  withdraw
is exercised and what legal consequences follow from a withdrawal.
1	 Cf. Hilbig-Lugani ZJS 2013, 441, 442.
2	 DAV Stellungnahme Nr. 78/2012, p. 3; Kaufhold Zusammenfassung der Stellungnahmen
des Deutschen Anwaltsvereins zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der
Verbraucherrechterichtlinie, zur Änderung des Verbrauchsgüterkaufrechts und zur
Änderung des Gesetzes zur Regelung der Wohnungsvermittlung, p. 3.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
40
As a result, if somebody wants to withdraw a declaration made, they need
to keep in mind three complexes of legal rules. What might be acceptable
for a lawyer is difficult for a consumer who wants to know his rights but
is not familiar with the law. This is also true for the Sections 312 et seq. One
has to be aware of an intricate interaction of rule and exception. Unlike
in the Directive on consumer rights, there are no separate rules concerning
duties to inform for off-premises contracts and distance contracts,
respectively, but the differentiation between both types of contracts has
been made within each provision. This is based on the legislator’s intention
to avoid redundancy as much as possible and to maintain the high degree
of abstraction and precision the BGB is so well-known for. However, this
leads to a law that is praised by legal scholars but not understandable for
entrepreneurs and consumers.3
This disadvantage is all the more serious, because a failure to provide correct
information about the right of withdrawal, or else to omit this information,
does not result in an unlimited right to withdraw the contract any
longer, as had been the case pursuant the former legal provisions.4
Even
if the trader intentionally does not advise the other party on the right
of withdrawal, the consumer can no longer withdraw the contract after
a maximum period of twelve months and two weeks.5
Therefore, it is the all
the more important that the consumers know their rights and that the provisions
dealing with these rights be easily accessible. This is a weak point
of the German transposition.
II	 Definition of  off-premises contracts
To meet the criteria of an off-premises contract, two requirements have
to be fulfilled. Firstly, a presumed imbalance has to be given; secondly, further
situation-specific requirements that call for the protection of the weaker
party must be met.
3	 See also Hilbig-Lugani ZJS 2013, 545, 550.
4	 Koch JZ 2014, 758, 760; Hilbig-Lugani ZJS 2013, 545, 547.
5	 Pursuant Section 356 (2) 3 this rule does not apply to off-premises contracts for financial
services.
Workshop Proceedings
41
The parties to the contract must be a trader and a consumer. The underlying
rationale is that in this situation, there is usually an imbalance between
the trader and the consumer. This imbalance is to be reduced by rules which
protect the consumer. Whether there has been an actual imbalance in a specific
case, however, is of no relevance.6
This may be criticized from a standpoint
of legal policy, however, the consumer enjoys the protection of these
legal provisions even if the specific case is different.
Consumer is defined by the redrafted Section 13 BGB as any natural person
who enters into a legal transaction for purposes that are predominantly
outside his trade, business or profession. The rule that the purpose need
not predominantly be professional or commercial is meant to include those
transactions that have purposes of both a professional and private nature.
This codifies the  former judicial decisions. More consideration should
be given to the fact that only a person who pursues a self-employed commercial
purpose is not a consumer. Consequently, employees are consumers
under German law.7
This goes beyond the scope of the Directive on consumer
rights, but is generally considered to be in line with the principle
of full harmonization.8
However, consumer protection is a one-way principle under German law:
It must be the consumer who is obliged to owe the payment, and it must
be the trader who is obliged to provide the contract-specific performance.9
This has been widely criticized,10
particularly since the Directive on consumer
rights does not demand such a restriction. And in the case of other
contracts – if, for example, the consumer is approached by a car salesman
in parking lot and then sells the latter his car for cash – he is at least as worthy
of protection as if the case were reversed. Here, however, he does not
enjoy that protection.
Situationally, Section 312 b – transposing Art. 2 No. 8 and No. 9 Directive
on consumer rights – calls for the consumer having given a binding
6	 HK-BGB/Schulte-Nölke Sec. 312 para. 1.
7	 Erman/Saenger Sec. 13 para. 1a, 15; cf. jurisPK/Martinek Sec. 13 para. 27 et seq.
8	 HK-BGB/Schulte-Nölke Sec. 312 para. 2; Bülow/Artz Verbraucherprivatrecht para. 67.
9	 Bülow/Artz Verbraucherprivatrecht art. 86; Palandt/Grüneberg Sec. 312 para. 2; dissenting
opinion in HK-BGB/Schulte-Nölke Sec. 312 para. 4.
10	 Cf. Bülow/Artz Verbraucherprivatrecht para. 86.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
42
declaration outside the business premises of the contracting trader. The
rules also apply if the contract is concluded on the premises of another
trader – although in these cases, the consumer is normally not under psychological
pressure and is normally not confronted with an element of surprise
as would be the case in other situations. On the one hand, this extends
consumer protection considerably. On the other hand, certain types of contract
situations are now left out in which consumers had been protected
pursuant the former law, specifically contracts that are entered into by an
employee at their own workplace that are also the business premises of their
employer.11
Of course, the consumer is not in need of protection if the contract
is related to the employment relationship. But this may not necessarily
be the case, and then it would be rather difficult to explain why the OPC
should apply to that contract.
Under the old legal provisions it was a prerequisite that the consumer be led
to enter into a contract. This is not a requirement any longer. The new rules
are rigid and less open to interpretation. I shall illustrate using two examples.
•	 In cases where the contract was concluded in a doorstep-selling situation,
but the doorstep-selling situation was not the cause of the conclusion
of the contract, for example because the consumer wanted
to enter into the contract at any cost and had maybe even solicited
the  trader’s  visit,12
the courts have refused to apply the consumer
protection rules.13
This should not be possible any longer pursuant
to the new rules.14
•	 Conversely, in other situations the consumer is less protected than
pursuant the former rules. If the consumer is led to enter into a contract
in a doorstep-selling situation, but the contract is not concluded
until several days later, the consumer will not be protected pursuant
the new rules. This was different under the old rules.15
Only in the cases of Section 312 b (1) No. 3 can there be a discussion as to
whether the consumer still entered immediately into the contract. These are
11	 Bülow/Artz Verbraucherprivatrecht para. 238.
12	 Pursuant to Section 312 (3) No. 1 in this situation, threre was no right to withdraw
the declaration.
13	 BGHZ 171, 364, 369.
14	 HK-BGB/Schulte-Nölke Sec. 312 b para. 1.
15	 BGH NJW-RR 2009, 1275, 1277 (three weeks); Hilbig-Lugani ZJS 2013, 441, 448.
Workshop Proceedings
43
the cases in which the consumer is approached in an off-premises situation,
but the contract is concluded immediately after that on the business premises.
But it looks to be only a question of time before the courts will have
to decide whether a consumer was personally and individually approached.16
Clever lawyers will be looking for a way to construe consumer approach
in such a way that it would fall outside of the scope of the consumer protection
rules. In addition, it is uncertain what the meaning of immediate conclusion
after consumer approach is now. Are we looking at minutes or hours?
Pursuant the former law, the German Federal Court of Appeal found that
a doorstep-selling situation might still exist if the consumer entered into
a contract two days after the trader’s visit.17
Art. 3 (4) of the Directive on consumer rights allows the member states
to decide not to apply this Directive or to introduce corresponding national
provisions to off-premises contracts for which the payment to be made
by the consumer does not exceed EUR 50 or to define a lower value in their
national legislation. The German legislator drew the line at EUR 40, which
does not mean that in these cases none of the provisions applies, but rather
that only certain duties apply [see Section 312 (4) No. 12 BGB]. With
regard to off-premises contracts, it is of relevance that no right of withdrawal
exists and that the consumer is not obliged to pay a fee for the use
of a certain means of payment by way of fulfilling his contractual obligations
if the agreed-upon fee exceeds the cost borne by the entrepreneur for
the use of such means of payment.
III	 Consumer protection through information
In addition to the general obligations to inform according to Section 312a
BGB, which apply to every consumer contract, there are several other duties
to inform the consumer that have to be specifically fulfilled in off-premises
contracts. This goes beyond what was required pursuant the former
law. According to the former law, the consumer had to be informed only
about the right to withdraw the contract. What makes the law inaccessible
16	 Schärtl JuS 2014, 577, 579.
17	 Cf. BGH NJW 1996, 3416, 3417.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
44
to the consumer yet again is the fact that the content of the duties to inform
in  off-premises contracts is  regulated in  yet another codification
(the EGBGB) and not in the BGB.
The specific duties of  information apply equally to  off-premises contracts
and to distance contracts. A differentiation is only made concerning
the distinction whether the contract is a financial service contract or not.
In addition, there are several duties of information that have to be fulfilled
(shortly) after the conclusion of the contract. In the case of an off-premises
contract, this information has to be given on paper, unless the consumer
has agreed to get the information on a durable medium (Art. 246 § 4 (2)
EGBGB). If the contract concerns financial services, the information has
to be given on a durable medium in any case (Art. 246 b § 2 EGBGB).
In this manner, the confrontation with an element of surprise can be relativized
in a situation where the consumer needs to be informed very thoroughly:
Whoever receives such a lot of information should always be alert!
However, the amount of information that has to be delivered might also
overburden the consumer. One may easily overlook within the sea of information
the essential pieces needed to make informed decisions.
If the entrepreneur violates his duty to inform about the right to withdraw
the contract, the maximum period of twelve months and two weeks applies
(Section 346 (3) 2 BGB). In addition, the trader may be exposed to damages
and claims based on unfair competition behaviour. Unlike in some other
countries, there are no state authorities that supervise whether a businessman
complies with his duties of information. Taking that into account it is
doubtful whether this is in line with Art. 24 (1) of the Directive on consumer
rights.
IV	 Consumer protection through withdrawal
In line with the Directive on consumer rights, Section 312 g (2) stipulates
that there is no right of withdrawal in some specific contracts although they
are off-premises contracts. One of those exceptions is stipulated in Section
312 g (2) No. 1: the right to withdraw a contract does not exist for contracts
for the supply of goods that are not prefabricated and the production
Workshop Proceedings
45
of which is governed by the consumer’s individual choice, or which are
clearly tailored to the personal needs of the consumer. Of particular note
in this regard are the so-called build-to-order contracts, i.e. contracts for goods
that are manufactured – of course – following the consumer’s individual
choice, but by using standard parts that can easily be fractionized without
loss of value. Although the underlying rationale, which is that the entrepreneur
shall not be obliged to take back an item that he cannot sell to another
customer – at least not without any loss –, is not fulfilled, the exception
has to be applied nevertheless.18
Consequently, it seems to be only a matter
of time before clever entrepreneurs will seek to avoid the right of withdrawl
by asking the consumer to make minor individual configurations to the item
in question.
Compared to the former rules, it is now more difficult for the consumer
to exercise his right to withdraw the contract. Pursuant the old rules,
the right could by exercised by simply returning the goods. This is no longer
possible. Although the law does not stipulate a form requirement, the mere
returning of the goods cannot be interpreted as the necessary declaration
(implied by facts).19
This is because it can be seen from the legislative materials
that the legislator has found it insufficient to merely send back the goods
without any further declaration.20
Taking into account that this is a major
change compared to the former law, and that the consumers will probably
be used to the former practice, one would wish that the legislature had made
the change within the code and not only within the legislative materials.
On the other hand it is commendable that the withdrawal period does not
commence before the consumer has been informed about his right to withdraw
the contract and before he has received the goods. However in some
regards the level of protection is much lower than pursuant the former
law. Firstly, if the trader fails to provide correct information on the right
of withdrawal or if he omits this information, this does not result in an
unlimited right to withdraw the contract any longer. The right to withdraw
the contract generally ends after twelve months and two weeks. This might
18	 Schärtl JuS 2014, 577, 579; Hilbig-Lugani ZJS 2013, 441, 451.
19	 Koch JZ 2014, 758, 760; Hohlweger/Ehmann GWR 2014, 211, 213; Foerster JA 2014, 801;
Schärtl JuS 2014, 577, 579; Hilbig-Lugani ZJS 2013, 545.
20	 BT-Drucks. 17/12637, p. 60.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
46
privilege entrepreneurs: Their risk of being obliged to take the goods back
is limited to twelve months and two weeks and they might choose to bear
this risk. As it is very difficult for the consumer to quantify his damage
claim, the entrepreneur does not face a risk of being sentenced to pay damages.
The risk of somebody claiming unfair competition behaviour is also
relatively limited. Secondly, according to the former law, the consumer
had to bear the costs for sending back the goods only in distance selling
contracts if the parties agreed so and only if the value of the goods send
back did not exceed the amount of EUR 40.21
According to the new law,
the consumer is now generally obliged to bear these costs.22
Thirdly, according
to Section 356 (4), in the case of a sale of consumer goods, the entrepreneur
may refuse to make repayment until he has received the returned goods
or the consumer has provided proof that he has dispatched the goods.
Consequently, the  consumer has to  give up  possession of  the  item and
therefore has no security if the purchase price is not reimbursed.23
This
might prevent him from using his right to withdraw the contract.24
V	 Consumer protection in civil proceedings
There is also a form of consumer protection in court proceedings.
If the entrepreneur files a claim against the consumer based on an offpremises
contract, Section 29c ZPO applies. The court at the location where
the consumer has had his place of residence at the time of initiating the proceedings
has exclusive jurisdiction for all claims against the  consumer.
A choice-of-forum agreement – particularly if made after the emergence
of the dispute – is thus also invalid. For claims of the consumer against
the entrepreneur, Section 29c ZPO stipulates an additional jurisdiction for
the court at the location where the consumer has had his place of residence
at the time of initiating the proceedings. In this case, the choice is up
to the consumer (Section 35 ZPO).
21	 Cf. Koch JZ 2014, 758, 762.
22	 Koch JZ 2014, 758, 762; Hohlweger/Ehmann GWR 2014, 211, 214; Möller BB 2014, 1411,
1417; HK-BGB/Schulte-Nölke Introduction to Sec. 312–312k para. 1.
23	 Hilbig-Lugani ZJS 2013, 545, 548.
24	 Schärtl JuS 2014, 577, 581.
Workshop Proceedings
47
VI	 Conclusion
From a systematic point of view, the Directive on consumer rights was
transposed coherently into German law. However, the new provisions are
not easily accessible for practitioners. This is particularly the case for foreign
practitioners, who have little familiarity with German civil law and its principles.
This might affect the proper functioning of the single market. The law
is also not easily accessible for the consumer. A law that even legal professionals
find hard to understand is overwhelming to the common consumer.
After only six months, it is difficult to evaluate the new legal provisions.
In certain aspects, the protection of the consumer has been extended –
sometimes more than was necessary. In other respects, consumer protection
has been curtailed – also more than was necessary. In part, this happened
in line with the principle of full harmonization. But the legislature has not
made full use of the possibilities which that principle still allows.
48
The new Civil Code and Protection
of a Consumer Concluding
an Off-premises Contract
Markéta Selucká
Masaryk University, Faculty of Law, Brno, the Czech Republic
marketa.selucka@law.muni.cz
Abstract
In this paper, I focused on consumer protection concerning contracts
negotiated away from business premises in the Czech private law and I also
reviewed transposition of the directive on consumer rights into the new
Czech Civil code. Aside from that, I tried to answer the question whether
the specifically endangered consumers (usually senior citizens) are granted
sufficient protection by the Czech private law, or whether the EU law (especially
the Directive 2011/83/EU) provides sufficient substantive-law protection
concerning the contracts negotiated away from business premises.
Keywords
Off-premises Contracts; Consumer; Total Harmonization; Right
of Withdrawal; Transposition of Directive 2011/83/EU; New Czech Civil
Code.
As of 1. 1. 2014, the new Civil Code became effective in the Czech Republic
(Act No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code, hereinafter “CC”), which replaced
the repeatedly amended Civil Code originating in 1964 (Act No. 40/1964
Coll., Civil Code, hereinafter “CC 1964”), though we may state that after
the “Velvet Revolution”, CC 1964 was substantially revised so that it would
return to normal and standard institutions of private law, which we find
all across Europe (especially amendment performed by Act No. 509/1991
Coll. effective 1. 1. 1992).
Czech lawmakers nevertheless felt the need to offer Czech society a new civil
code (similarly to how all political representatives of other post-communist
Workshop Proceedings
49
countries are currently considering) because the previous code was considered
and characterized as a code influenced by the ideals of communist legislation,
even though the robust and relatively stabilized case law created
since 1989 created a reasonably stable legal environment. Within the framework
of Czech legislation, the new Civil Code, whose main drafter was
prof. Karel Eliáš, was the third attempt, and only this third draft of the civil
code became law de lege lata.
The basic point of view we want to challenge in the new Czech civil code
is the manner in which it protects the consumer in case of off-premises
contracts. The actual reason for the analysis of the legal regulation protecting
the consumer in case of off-premises contracts is comprised of the fact
that Czech society faces relatively strong pressure of groups that intentionally
focus on the elderly part of the population. They misuse their trust
and inability to  digest quickly and flexibly the  novelties of  today’s  rapid
development of society in an effort to quickly and unethically or downright
immorally enrich themselves. As otherwise proven by the documentary film
“Šmejdi” by director Silvia Dymáková1
, they use for these ends not only disinformation
but outright lies, pressure and manipulation, but also degradation
and aggressive behavior. The commentary for distribution of this film
asks “What really happens on those popular excursions with a free lunch?
Practices that chill to the bone. Lies and thought-out manipulation, whose
only aim is to force helpless elderly persons purchase overpriced goods.
Seniors pay horrendous sums from their meager pensions for often lowquality
products.” Law generally does not deal with what is, but determines
what is to be. On the other hand, law as a normative system of each society
is formed by real society, and must react to the real life of the given society,
e.g. determine rules so that the state would be a legal and democratic state.
Law (and its creators) must therefore react to social phenomena, e.g. it must
take into account negative behavior in the given society and fulfill its basic
aim, to allow in society only an acceptable level of injustice.
Before we offer opinions relating to law de lege lata, it is also necessary
to understand the fact the consumer was also protected in case of off-premises
contracts by CC 1964, e.g. even the “old” civil code contained consumer
1	 Http://www.csfd.cz/film/322198-smejdi/.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
50
protection in these specific cases. Czech lawmakers thus had to take into
consideration specific expectations:
•	 Experience with implementing Directive 85/577/EC into the Czech
legal system in CC 1964 including Czech case law.
•	 ECJ/EU case law relating to Directive 85/577/EC
•	 The fact that Directive 85/577/EC and Directive 97/7/EC were
repealed and replaced by the Directive on the rights of consumers
(Directive 2011/83/EU)
•	 Actual text of text Directive 2011/83/EU
•	 The principle of full harmonization of Directive 2011/83/EU with
the possibility of a series of exceptions
One remarkable phenomenon of Czech society and the method of creating
laws in the CR is the draft amendment of a new civil code, which
the Ministry of Justice submitted for public discussion on 28. 08. 2014 at its
Website2
(e.g. not even eight months away from the effective date of the new
code!). The draft amendment contained an entirely new legal regulation
of contracts negotiated with the consumer, so before the consumer had
a chance to even become familiar with the concept of consumer protection
in the new civil code, lawmakers wanted to cancel the entire regulation and
replace it with a completely new one, moreover founded upon transposition
of directives on consumer protection conceived in minimalist fashion,
because the draft generally contained only required a minimum directive
standard that the CR must respect, so traditional (or already traditional)
bonuses of consumer protection in Czech private law should be extracted
and repealed.
We believe that in Czech society, we can generally understand the effort
of certain groups to prey unethically and immorally on threatened groups
of Czech society, their significant influence on social elites, and therefore
also the creation of legal regulation, whether it concerns power groups
affiliated with relatively monopolized provision of services (typically energy
and telecommunication) or groups operating on the financial products market
(typically non-bank loans, but also banking houses), as well as groups
concentrating with full intention on the weaker individuals of our society.
2	 Http://www.justice.cz.
Workshop Proceedings
51
We may therefore state in general that for a citizen of the CR, it is most
beneficial that besides this he is also a citizen of the EU, which guarantees
him a certain standard of protection from the powerful and power groups
of Czech, but also European or global society.
I	 The term “off-premises contract”
It generally applies that under the term “off-premises contract”, one may
subsume any contract concluded upon the concurrent physical presence
of the entrepreneur (business) and the consumer outside of the entre-
preneur’s workplace in the wording of Act No. 455/1991 Coll., on Trade
Licensing (Trade Licensing Act), as amended. Besides this though, it will
be necessary to start from the diction of Directive 2011/83/EU, e.g. business
premises must be considered any property either movable or immovable,
in which the entrepreneur permanently or normally operates his business
(brick-and-mortar store, stand at a market, mobile shop, etc.). Also necessarily
considered an off-premises contract however is such contract that
was concluded within premises ordinarily used for business, if the entrepreneur
addressed the consumer outside these premises, and then immediately
concluded contract within the business premises. The cardinal question will
be: how are we to understand the term “immediately”. This will certainly
be in the case when the consumer would, based on a personally handed
over a leaflet on the street (public area) be “swindled” into the store to sign
the contract. How will this be however in case that the consumer stops
into the business premises the very next day? Will the condition “immedi-
ately3
” still be fulfilled? The model solution offered to us by the CC thus
seems to be a bit “incomplete”, or left to the interpretation of the court, and
in light of the non-existence of such case law evoking legal uncertainty for
both consumers and entrepreneurs alike.
We will also consider as an off-premises contract also a contract concluded
at so-called demonstration events (even though e.g. in this house
of culture, the entrepreneur repeatedly runs his events, and the consumer
arrives in his own vehicle), whether these events are held with transport
3	 Compare to this the legislation in Germany, where the term lasts two days. Paper published
in the journal of Dr. Frank Spohnheimer.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
52
arranged by the entrepreneur (or a third party) or the consumer arrives
himself. Lawmakers state that the contract concluded outside the business
premises is also a contract “negotiated during an excursion organized
by the entrepreneur for the purpose of promotion and sale of goods or provision
of services”. Lawmakers apply a somewhat misleading term “excur-
sion4
”, by which we would stricto senzu have to understand only excursion
as a typed obligation (Sec 2521 et seq. of the CC), e.g. a set of services
in tourism.In the context of the Directive on rights of consumers however,
we must state that it concerns any “excursion event”5
(e.g. it need not concern
a set of services in tourism), which is implemented in order to promote
and sell goods or services.
II	 Obligation to inform - basic method of  consumer
protection
It generally applies that just as CC 1964, CC respects the main principle
of consumer protection in EU, entailing the ideal of a so-called informed
consumer. In somewhat simpler terms, we could state that the consumer
should decide whether it concludes a contract or not based on relevant
information, which he will understand, e.g. “the consumer will know what
it is about”.
The obligation to inform generally can be categorized according
to the moment when the consumer obtains information 6
, e.g. in the period
prior to signing the contract, at the moment of concluding the contract and
during the course of paying the debt (implementation of obligation). The
new civil code expands the general period prior to signing, and relatively
strictly at that, because the entrepreneur is obliged to inform the consumer
on a series of facts (Sec 1811(2) CC) regardless of the method by which
the contract is concluded. Exceptions are defined only for specific subjects
of performance, specifically everyday life matters (e.g. purchasing ordinary
bread) and digital calculation (compare Sec 1811(3) CC). Whereas in case
4	 Unfortunately, we find a similar term in the official translation of the Directive in Czech.
5	 Compare Hulmák, Milan. In: Hulmák, Milan and coll. Civil Code VI Binding Law.
Special part (Sec 2055-3014). Prague: C. H. Beck, 2014. Extensive commentary. S. 543.
6	 For more information, see Selucká, Markéta. Consumer protection in private law 1st
edition Prague: C.H.Beck, 2008. 134 pages Beckova edice právní instituty.
Workshop Proceedings
53
of contracts concluded e.g. within the framework of ordinary sales in brickand-mortar
stores, failure to uphold this obligation is prosecuted in principle
only by the right to compensation for damage (injury), which arises
in consequence of providing pre-contractual information, in case of contracts
negotiated outside the business premises not sharing information
on the price of the subject of fulfillment including taxes and fees, costs for
supply and costs for returning goods in case of withdrawal from the contract,
the consumer is afforded the right to not pay these costs to the entrepreneur
(compare Sec 1821 CC and Art. 6(6) of Directive 2011/83/EU).
We can state that from the legal regulation, no relief of the obligation to pay
taxes and fees towards third parties (as a rules the state) arises, so it concerns
incomplete performance of Directive on rights of consumers7
.
Within the framework of pre-contractual negotiations, the consumer should
obtain information, which has certain characteristics. First he must be provided
information clearly and understandably in the language in which
the contract is concluded. We should understand understandability as that
which the average consumer grasps and understands that which he is
or will be bound to the contract. This does not only regard grammatical
understandability and legibility (including letter size), but also fulfillment
of the theory of the consumer, who “knows what he is getting into” (compare
ESD C-26/13 Árpád Kásler, Hajnalka Káslerné Rábai versus OTP
Jelzálogbank Zrt.). The form of provided information in case of contracts
negotiated outside the business premises must be in writing (compare Sec
1828(1 CC), unless the consumer agrees that information will be provided
to him in a different text form (e.g. in PDF on a CD).
However, in practice we generally encounter the fact that the consumer
is usually, within the framework of the moment of surprise of crowded
atmosphere, manipulated by information, which is not complete, is distorted
or is an outright lie (typically a greeting on the street or an exhibition
within the framework of demonstration events), and consequently
obtains written pre-contractual (or by the contractual) information, which
does not correspond to that which was told to him orally. The provisions
7	 Consistantly Hulmák, Milan. In: Hulmák, Milan and coll. Civil Code VI Binding Law.
Special part (Sec 2055-3014). Prague: C. H. Beck, 2014. Extensive commentary.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
54
of Sec 1822(1) of the CC explicitly state that “The contract must also contain
data shared with the consumer prior to its conclusion. This data can
be changed if the parties explicitly agree thereto. The concluded contract
must be in accordance with data shared with the consumer prior to conclusion
of the contract. This data may change if the parties explicitly agree
thereto, otherwise data as the content of the contract is usually more favorable.”
Thus, the consumer usually gets oral pre-contractual information
within the framework of demonstrating a service or goods, then possible
pre-contractual written information (Sec 1828(1) of the CC), and consequently
concludes the contract, which contains arrangements, which should
be in line with data provided prior to conclusion of the contract, whether
such data was shared orally or in writing. If the consumer obtained different
pre-contractual information, and so the content of the contract does not
correspond to this, it does not mean the contract is invalid, because the contract
includes rights and obligations, which arise from information provided
to the consumer prior to concluding the contract. The situation will be in
fact quite clear that the consumer has pre-contractual information in writing
(or text) form. However, in case that the content of the contract does
not correspond to the orally provided pre-contractual information, which
is very typical for contract concluded outside the business premises, the consumer
usually finds himself in a lack of proof, because he cannot prove that
the entrepreneur shared with him completely different information.
It is a question of how to adopt an appropriate model solution in private
law, which would sufficiently protect the consumer from dishonest entrepreneur,
who tell the consumer incomplete information or outright lies for
the purpose of compelling the consumer to conclude a contract that is disadvantageous
to him. Of course the consumer can seek compensation for
injury (damage), and the provisions prosecuting error in negotio (compare
Sec 583 CC), but at the moment when the consumer does not bear the burden
of proof, he will lose the dispute (if he even has the courage to attempt
a long and expensive judicial process). In our opinion, such an institute does
not exist (apart from the right to withdraw from the contract, but the contract
has already been concluded). The only effective way to protect the consumer
from dishonest behavior of the entrepreneur is effective public protection
Workshop Proceedings
55
comprised of public oversight of the area of this enterprising (in the CR as
a rule Act No. 634/1992 Coll., on Consumer Protection, as amended, hereinafter
the “CPA”). Besides imposing sanctions in the form of penalties (Sec
24 of the CPA), it would be in order to revoke the trade license, i.e. limit him
in continuing sales not ad hoc and not for a limited period of time(Sec 23a
of the CPA), but permanently.
III	 Withdrawal from the Contract
Withdrawal from the Contract is a general institute, whose implementation
results in expiration of the obligation without fulfillment of the purpose
of the contract occurring (effects ex tunc). In case of the general institution
of legal withdrawal from the contract (not negotiated withdrawal from
the contract), the theory applies that the contracting party may withdraw
from the contract in case the obligation already exists, i.e. the contracting
party can withdraw from the contract up until the moment until expiration
occurs of the obligation by due fulfillment of the debt. The principle
is partially broken by the provisions of 
Sec 2004(2), second sentence
of the CC, since the contractual party may withdraw from the contract
regarding the entire fulfillment in case of partial fulfillment of the debt,
if partial fulfillment has no meaning for the creditor. Consumer protection
also disrupts the principle of withdraw from the contract under conditions
of existence of the obligation, because it provides the consumer protection
by means of withdrawing from the contract within a certain term after
expiration of the obligation to duly fulfill the debt. By its nature, withdrawal
from the contract is not a sanction for breach of obligation (compare Sec
2002 CC and “fundamental breach of contract”), but a “bonus” or specific
protection of the consumer.
The sense and purpose of such consumer protection are the fact that
the consumer purchases goods or a service at the moment of surprise
or in an atmosphere of certain pressure, because he may not compare
the offered product with competitive offers, and in case of demonstration
events, he faces marketing and even manipulative practices. The consumer
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
56
is therefore entitled to a 14-day term8
“to think it over”, during which
he may withdraw from the contract in case that the obligation has expired
by due fulfillment of the debt (goods were supplied and bore no defects).
He may implement his right without any sanction (cancellation fee, etc.),
with the stipulation that he only pays costs for return delivery of the goods.
The basic stipulation for implementing the right to withdraw from the contract
is the fact that the consumer knows of his right, which should be guaranteed
by the obligation to inform of the entrepreneur, by which the entrepreneur
is burdened even prior to the actual conclusion of the contract.
The consumer usually obtains such information in written form up until
the moment of concluding the contract (at demonstration events this fact
was not emphasized, or the consumer is directly instructed that he is not entitled
to such right). If he did not receive instructions even within the framework
of contractual or pre-contractual information, the fourteen-day term
extends to one year and fourteen days with the stipulation that if the consumer
is instructed during the course of the extended term, the running
of the extended deadline is interrupted, and a standard fourteen-day term
begins running. In case of a dispute, the entrepreneur bears the burden
of proof of fulfilling his obligation to instruct (compare Sec 1839 CC),
and if he cannot bear this, but still fulfilled the obligation, the consumer
is entitled to withdraw from the contract in the extended term of one year
and fourteen days. By ineffective lapse of the extended term, the consumer
loses his right to withdraw, and oftentimes without the consumer even finding
out that he was entitled to withdraw from the contract.
It is a question of whether the very extension of the term for withdrawal
from the contract protects the consumer in a sufficient manner or not9
.
In our opinion, we can understand extension of the term for withdrawing
from the contract in two levels - as a certain method of consumer
protection, but also as a certain penalty for the entrepreneur (legal uncertainty)
for his failing to act in a correct manner towards the consumer.
It appears that the directive on consumer rights abandons the legal opinion
8	 Negotiated in the entire EU based on the principle of full harmonization of Directive
2011/83/EU.
9	 For more details see Selucká, Markéta. In: Eliáš, Karel et al. Civil Code. Extensive academic
commentary 1st volume Sec 1 - 487. 1st edition Prague: Linde Praha, a. s., 2008. S. 391.
Workshop Proceedings
57
of the expression of the ECJ in relation to Directive 85/577/EEC in case
C-481/1999 Georg Heininger and Helga Heininger versus Bayerische
Hypo und Vereinsbank AG, that determination of a one-year preclusive
term for the right to withdraw from the contract if the consumer was not
instructed of his right to withdraw from the contract, is not in accordance
with Directive 85/577/ECC. In our opinion, legal certainty of the entrepreneur
is thereby strengthened (he knows that after a year the consumer
cannot “just easily” withdraw from the contract, and if so, to the detriment
of consumer protection. In Directive 2011/83/EU, thus the “pragmatic
approach” has probably won in the sense when the consumer did not figure
out himself the fact that he may withdraw from the contract without
any sanction within a term of one year, it would be hard for him to realize
his withdrawal later, moreover if an obligation expired by due fulfillment
of the debt, the right may appear as “excessive” and needlessly unsettling
of the legal position of the entrepreneur.
The obligation expired by due fulfillment of the debt, and both contracting
parties become obliged after withdrawal from the contract to return provided
fulfillment mutually. The consumer is obliged to send (hand over)
to the entrepreneur goods without needless delay within a term of no later
than 14 days, and the entrepreneur is obliged to return the provided money
(price of goods and shipping price to the consumer) to the consumer without
needless within a term of no later than 14 days. The entrepreneur does
not become obliged to return the money in case that the consumer did
not hand over goods to the entrepreneur, or did not prove to him that
he sent the goods to the entrepreneur (compare Sec 1821 CC and Art. 6(6)
of Directive 2011/83/EU). Paradoxically, it is rather the entrepreneur who
is protected from the consumer, who is in default, meanwhile there is no
specific protection of the consumer in case of default of the entrepreneur
in returning money. In practice, we oftentimes meet with the situation that
the consumer sends goods back in due fashion, but he does not receive
the money within the term, or the amount is “shortened”, with justification
regarding opening and damage to 
sealed packaging, etc. It is as though
European lawmakers forgot that the entrepreneur has a much stronger position
in extracting his rights, who usually has a professional legal apparatus,
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
58
whereas the consumer, who did not receive a sum of money, is a lay person
who often resigns protection of his rights and return of small sums
(generalized costs for returning goods and damaged goods due to breach
of the packaging). In our opinion, an entirely opposite design would
be appropriate, i.e. the right of the consumer to withhold a thing (as a right
in rem), until the entire amount is returned to him in standard fashion.
The sum of money that the entrepreneur is obliged to return is the price and
shipping costs to the consumer, if the consumer did not choose a cheaper
method of delivering goods. If he chooses more expensive and convenient
supply of goods, he shall bear the difference himself (unless he was not duly
instructed of his obligations within the framework of pre-contractual information).
The very term “cheapest offered method of delivery” may be misleading,
because the entrepreneur can offer delivery of goods by handover
in a brick-and-mortar store or dispensary (e.g. for a symbolic sum of fifteen
Crowns or even for free). However, it can be understood that this method
cannot be characterized as the cheapest method of delivery. In our opinion,
delivery can also be understood as such that enables delivery to the con-
sumer’s home and not to the business establishment of the entrepreneur.
If the cheapest delivery would be in a brick-and-mortar store or dispensary,
and the consumer would choose the cheapest courier service (e.g. Czech
Post or PPL) in case that he exercises his right to withdraw from the contract,
the entrepreneur, with reference to delivery at a contractual dispensary
or brick-and-mortar store, could deduce that such delivery of goods
is the cheapest, and in final consequence, the consumer would bear both
costs for delivery to his home and back. That is because a general theory
applies of balanced sharing of costs between both contractual partners,
whereas the entrepreneur pays costs to the consumer, and the consumer
pays costs to the consumer. The consumer should only pay extra for convenience,
i.e. delivery at a certain time, bringing the consignment upstairs, etc.
The actual sense and purpose of the right to withdraw from the contract after
the debt was fulfilled duly and on time is to give the consumer the chance
to “try out the product”, i.e. the consumer should return to the entrepreneur
in principle only an opened and tested product back. However, if the consumer
misuses his right in a manner where he “overuses” the goods beyond
Workshop Proceedings
59
standard familiarization with the  subject of  fulfillment, he  should bear
responsibility for decreasing the value of the goods, i.e. the entrepreneur
becomes entitled to compensation for a decrease in value of the goods
formed in  consequence of  excessive use, which cannot be  characterized
as familiarizing oneself with the goods. The Czech lawmaker created Art.
14, para. 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU in a somewhat expanding manner,
when it determined that the right to compensation is extended to the entrepreneur
in case that handled it differently “than it is necessary to handle
it with regard to its nature and characteristics”. So if the consumer vacuums
the whole house twelve hours every day for ten days, he is certainly not
using the product differently than as it is necessary to handle considering its
nature and properties, i.e. he uses it in accordance with its normal purpose,
etc. So according to Czech law, he should not be liable for possible decrease
in the value of the product. Meanwhile, if he were to use the subject of fulfillment
in a manner that contradicts its nature and properties, he should
be liable for decreasing the value of the product (e.g. he uses his mobile
phone to stir his tea in a glass).
IV	 Conclusion
Perhaps in conclusion, we could surmise that the consumer is entitled
to a series of institutions of private law, which attempt to provide him
with effective protection in the case of off-premises contracts. Whether
it’s the idea of “informed consumer”, who is aware of his rights and obligations
to which he undertakes, he concludes a contract or by such institute,
there may be the specific right to withdraw from the contract without any
reason or any sanction. Practice however teaches us of the fact that the situation
in Czech society is much more complex and complicated, and that
the practices of would-be entrepreneurs (in fact members of our society
preying off of those most vulnerable) flexibly react to the effort of legislative
power to determine clear and fair rules of play for behavior, which
effectively protects the weaker from the stronger.
Generally, and especially in light of the enacted directives on consumer protection,
we can state that the consumer is protected by a series of substantive
institutes, but effective, quick and cheap method of protection of subjective
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
60
rights of the consumer in Czech society is still missing (but for exceptions
e.g. institute of the financial arbitrator). The consumer does have the right
in case withdrawing from the contract for the entrepreneur to return
to him all financial performances that he provided the entrepreneur with,
but in case the entrepreneur does not fulfill his obligation, or only partially,
and kept part of the money for himself illegally, the consumer generally
gives up on protecting his subjective rights, because he is discouraged from
doing so by lengthy and costly litigation, which he does not wish to take
on for petty amounts. The same can be said in case that the consumer does
withdraw from the contract within his right, but the entrepreneur does not
“recognize” his withdrawal, or feels it is ineffective or he tells the consumer
directly that he had no right to withdraw from the contract or that he still has
no right to do so. The consumer thus again forced to consider whether it is
worth it to “undergo lengthy litigation”, or just keep the product in which
he is not interested. As a rule, he will choose the second option, i.e. he again
resigns protection of his subjective rights.
61
Off-premises Consumer Contracts and Selected
Questions of Public Consumer Protection
Jana Dudová
Masaryk University, Faculty of Law, Brno, the Czech Republic
jana.dudova@law.muni.cz
Abstract
This paper focuses on public protection of consumers when concluding
off-premises contracts. The main purpose behind this paper is to ascertain
whether the selected public regulation of off-premises contracts
in the Czech Republic ensures sufficient protection of the consumer. One
may encounter the public issue of consumer off-premises contracts inter
alias upon selling at markets and at wide-ranging sporting, cultural, social and
recreational events and activities. Such a broad area would certainly deserve
a separate analysis, but in regards to its diversity (and in many aspects its
relative complexity), it cannot be explored further in this paper in all its
dimensions. With regard to the ever-more-delicate problems of application
practice, it will be necessary in the given context to focus attention on misleading
and aggressive practices as unfair competitive practices. Especially
observed will be the legal regulation of off-premises contracts under Act
No. 476/2013 Coll., amending Act No. 634/1992 Coll., on Consumer
Protection, the Consumer Protection Act, as amended (hereinafter “CPA”),
especially with regard to protection of “especially vulnerable consumers”.
Keywords
Public Protection of Consumers; Aggressive Practices as Unfair Competitive
Practices; “Vulnerable Consumer”; Czech Trade Inspection Authority.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
62
I	 Off-premises consumer contracts and unfair competition
Aspects of private and public protection of the consumer1
run parallel
in many directions and influence one another.2
This appears inter alias
in off-premises consumer contracts – especially in the unfair level of consumer
protection. Rights of buyers, or the obligations of entrepreneurs
towards them in production, import, distribution and sale of products,
are regulated in an entire series of special legal regulations (e.g. in case
of foods, this concerns Act No. 110/1997 Coll., on Foodstuffs and Tobacco
Products, as amended, public health requirements on composition of products
for children aged three and under or products designed for contact
with food arise from Act No. 258/2000 Coll., on Public Health Protection,
as amended, etc.). It is necessary to point out that as opposed to the private
regulation of unfair competition, regulation of unfair commercial practices
in the Act No. 634/1992 Coll., on Consumer Protection, the Consumer
Protection Act, as amended (hereinafter “CPA”), does not relate to all commercial
practices in the general level, but only in “business - consumer”
relationships. In the wording of the provisions of Sec 2(1)(a) of the CPA,
a consumer is considered an individual who is not acting in the course
of business or in a separate profession. In relation to unfair competition,
the viewpoint of the so-called average consumer will always hold substantial
meaning. However, this term is not definitively defined either in Czech
or European law, and its content is mainly influenced by secondary legal regulations
of the European Union, the case law of the EU Court of Justice and
the practice of national courts of individual EU Member States. Moreover,
the meaning of this term differs in individual Member States, which may
inter alias reflect the quality of protection of consumers as well, and especially
those groups of consumers especially vulnerable to unfair commercial
practices. Protection of  a so-called “vulnerable consumer” is reflected
in the CR in the provisions of Sec 4(2) of the CPA. In the wording of this
provision, unfairness of commercial practices is assessed, if it is aimed
1	 HULVA, Tomáš. Ochrana spotřebitele (Consumer protection). 1st Edition 1. Prague: ASPI,
2004, Právní rukověť. ISBN 8073570645, p. 44.
2	 ONDREJOVÁ, Dana. Nekalá soutěž v  novém občanském zákoníku: komentář (Unfair
competition in the new Civil Code: comment) 1st edition Prague: C. H. Beck, 2014, ISBN
9788074005220, p. 115.
Workshop Proceedings
63
at consumers who, due to mental or physical weakness or to age, are especially
vulnerable from the viewpoint of the average member of this group.
This however does not affect ordinary exaggeration in advertising. Through
regulation of the issue of unfair business practices (Sec 4-5a CPA including
appendices no. 1 and 2), the CPA implements the Directive of European
Parliament and the Council 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-toconsumer
commercial practices in the internal market.3
In keeping with
the provisions of Sec 4(1) of the CPA (so-called general clause of unfair
commercial practices), the merits of unfair commercial practice are defined.
A commercial practice is considered unfair if the entrepreneur’s conduct
towards the consumer is contrary to the requirements of professional care,
and is capable of significantly influencing that consumer’s decision in such
a way that the consumer may make a business decision that he would not
otherwise have made. For a certain action to qualify as an unfair commercial
practice, these conditions must be cumulatively fulfilled. Use of unfair
commercial practices when offering or selling products, and when offering
or providing services or rights, is exclusively prohibited (compare provisions
of Sec 4 of the CPA). Especially misleading and aggressive commercial
practices are labeled unfair. Then in appendices no. 1 and 2, the CPA
exhaustively defines individual unfair commercial practices (appendix no. 1
defines misleading commercial practices and appendix no. 2 defines aggressive
commercial practices).4
It is possible to summarize that each merit of misleading or aggressive
commercial practice as listed in the appendix of the CPA is always simultaneously
unfair competition. As opposed to breach of private regulations,
3	 The directive understands “business-to-consumer commercial practices” to mean any
act, omission, course of conduct or representation, commercial communication including
advertising and marketing, by a trader, directly connected with the promotion, sale
or supply of a product to consumers. Unfair commercial practices are such practices
that substantially disrupt or are capable of substantially disrupting the economic behavior
of the average consumer, who is exposed to its effects or to whom it is designed,
or the average member of a group, if the commercial practice focuses on a certain group
of consumers, in relation to the given product.
4	 Compare POKORNÁ J., VEČERKOVÁ E., DUDOVÁ J., LEVICKÁ T.: European
initiatives in the Czech business environment and consumer protection. Paper presented
at the international conference FKP (ECE) held on 5.–6. 3. 2015 at the Faculty
of Business and Economics of Mendel University in Brno.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
64
breach of public regulations is pursued by the relevant authority arising
from its official capacity. The CPA considers misleading commercial practices
inter alias e.g. incorrect informing by the entrepreneur on market
conditions or on the possibility of obtaining a product or service, in order
to compel the consumer to buy this product or offered service under less
advantageous conditions than normal market conditions, or untruthful declaration
that a product or provided service can cure an illness, health disorder
or disability, etc.5
Aggressive commercial practice is defined in the provisions
of Sec 5a of the CPA. This concerns such practice during which,
upon taking account of all its features and circumstances, by harassment,
coercion, including the use of physical force, or undue influence, it significantly
impairs or is likely to significantly impair the average consumer’s freedom
of choice. Upon judging whether a commercial practice is aggressive,
mainly taken into account are the 
timing, place and duration of the commercial
practice, the manner of acting, conscious exploitation of an adverse
situation of the consumer, etc. An aggressive commercial practice is always
a practice listed in appendix no. to this Act. This concerns inter alias a commercial
practice during which the entrepreneur creates the impression that
the consumer may not leave the place, where he is offered or sold the product
or provided a service without conclusion of a contract.6
II	 Protection from misleading and aggressive commercial
practices according to the CPA for off-premises
consumer contracts
Consciousness of the growing need to protect “especially vulnerable” consumers
(who are moreover threatened by misleading and aggressive commercial
practices especially at demonstration events) has projected mainly
in the gradual strengthening of public oversight. For off-premises consumer
contracts, this enhanced protection is secured mainly by means of changes,
which were introduced by Act No. 476/2013 Coll., amending the CPA,
5	 Compare the provisions of Sec 5 of the CPA in relation to appendix no. 1 of the CPA,
letters (p) and (q).
6	 Compare the provisions of Sec 5a of the CPA in relation to appendix no. 2 of the CPA,
letter (a).
Workshop Proceedings
65
effective from 15 January 2014. In the wording of the provisions of Sec
20 of the CPA, as amended, now organizers of demonstration sales events
are obliged to report to the Czech Trade Inspection Authority a series
of data and details that concern the holding of so-called organized events.
In the given context, it is first necessary to define what is understood by an
organized event. According to the provisions of Sec 20(2) of the CPA,
an organized event is considered an event designed for a limited number
of consumers, who were directly or indirectly invited to it, and during such
event there occur sales of products or provision of services or their promotion
or offer, whereas it is not decisive whether or not the event also includes
transportation of its participants.
A trader intending within the framework of an organized event to sell products
or provide services (or promote or offer them)is obliged to announce
this in advance to the Czech Trade Inspection Authority (hereinafter
“CTIA”) and provide legally required information. Meanwhile, the law
in no way specifies the form of invitation to such an event (it is not decisive
by what form the consumers were invited to the event). From this, one
may deduce that an organized event may also be considered such an event
to which an unlimited number of consumers can be indirectly invited (e.g.
by invitation), whereas the actual event will then be performed only for
a limited number of consumers. This will typically concern an event during
which the seller demonstrates his commercial activity outside the area
typically used for his trade. Reporting obligations do not apply to traveling,
or door-to-door sales, or to direct sale with regard to the fact that it does
not fulfill one of the criteria, which is the invitation. Also not considered
an organized event in the wording of the CPA are events during which
participants are trained and familiarized with products, who have the option
here of purchasing products for resale. That is because such participants
in this case do not act in the position of consumers.7
The CPA explicitly states that the legal regulation determining the obligation
in relation to holding organized events does not relate to cases of holding
auctions according to the law regulating public auction, since the legal
7	 In:portalof the CzechTradeInspectionAuthority[online].2015[cit.4/20/2015].Available
from: http://www.coi.cz/cz/pro-podnikatele/oznamovani-predvadecich-akci/.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
66
regulation of auctions ensures a sufficient guarantee of protection of consumers.
Furthermore, the scope of the legal regulation excludes events organized
exclusively for the purpose of individual negotiation of an insurance
policy, supplemental pension insurance, investment services or investment
instrument trading, as well as events organized exclusively for the purpose
of tasting, consumption and sale of tasted products, if a part of such event
does not include promotion, offer or sale of other products or provision
of other services.
Oversight on upholding obligations laid down by the CPA is quite fragmented
in terms of organization. Meanwhile, certain powers of control authorities
also overlap. In terms of protecting the consumer from unfair competition,
the Czech Trade Inspection Authority holds so-called residual powers.
In the section of agricultural, food and tobacco products, this concerns
the Czech Agricultural and Food Inspection Authority8
. Within the framework
of their organizational arrangements, these oversight authorities work
closely with public health protection authorities in terms of risks to human
health, with the state veterinary administration and with trade, customs and
other agencies. For the administrative offense of breaching the ban on use
of unfair business practices, according to Sec 24(1)(a) of the CPA in affiliation
with Sec 24(12)(d) of the CPA, a fine may be imposed up to an amount
of CZK 5 million.
III	 Conclusion
With regards to  these findings, one may conclude that by  amendment
of the CPA, strengthening undoubtedly occurred of public protection
of the “vulnerable consumer” in relation to concluding off-premises
consumer contracts. This fact is supported by the penalties that the relevant
oversight authority (by CTIA) has imposed for breaching the valid
8	 General principles and requirements of law governing food (inter alias in relation to protection
from unfair commercial practices, especially in terms of labeling of foodstuffs
and tobacco products, as well as further obligations to inform) are relatively integrally defined
in the Regulation (EC) of European Parliament and of the Council no. 178/2002,
and especially in the Regulation (EC) of European Parliament and of the Council no.
1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.
Workshop Proceedings
67
regulation.9
In the area of public regulation of the given issue, objective
responsibility of entrepreneurs and the relatively fast path towards remedy
upon exercising the relevant administrative and legal liability relations are
an undeniable benefit. 
In keeping with the provisions of Sec 23 of the CPA,
all government oversight bodies are authorized to issue binding instructions
to remove ascertained deficiencies. In the case of immediate threat to life,
health or property, they are mainly authorized to stop the sale of products
or provision of services.10
Mainly the long-term, persistent, insufficient mutual cooperation amongst
authorities having oversight over consumer protection can be labeled
an existing problem of application practice. Also, consumer awareness
should be improved (even with regard to the newly developing unfair practices
by untrustworthy “entrepreneurs”). These facts relate to the overall
effort to strengthen enforceability of the law, and to fulfillment of aims
of the national consumer policy for the years 2015-2020. 11
9	 In: Message of CTIA on penalties to so-called “Scoundrels” for 2013
[online]. 2014 [cit. 4/20/2015]. Available from: http://www.coi.cz/
pokuty-smejdum-pres-21 milionu-nc998/.
10	 Compare the provisions of Sec 23a of the CPA.
11	 Compare to this the portal of the Ministry of Industry and Trade: “Priority spotřebitelské
politiky2015 –2020”[online].2015[cit.2015-05-05].Availablefrom:http://databaze-strat-
egie.cz/cz/mpo/strategie/priority-spotrebitelske-politiky-2015-2020?typ=struktura.
Scientific board
prof. PhDr. Ladislav Rabušic, CSc.; Ing. Radmila Droběnová, Ph.D.
Mgr. Michaela Hanousková; doc. Mgr. Jana Horáková, Ph.D.
doc. JUDr. Josef Kotásek, Ph.D.; Mgr. et Mgr. Oldřich Krpec, Ph.D.
prof. PhDr. Petr Macek, CSc.; PhDr. Alena Mizerová
doc. Ing. Petr Pirožek, Ph.D.; doc. RNDr. Lubomír Popelínský, Ph.D.
Mgr. David Povolný; Mgr. Kateřina Sedláčková, Ph.D.
prof. RNDr. David Trunec, CSc.; prof. MUDr. Anna Vašků, CSc.
prof. PhDr. Marie Vítková, CSc.; Mgr. Iva Zlatušková
doc. Mgr. Martin Zvonař, Ph.D.
OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION IN LAW AND PRAXIS
Workshop Proceedings
Assoc. prof. JUDr. Markéta Selucká, Ph.D. (ed.)
Published by Masaryk University, Brno
Publications of the Masaryk University No. 528
(theoretical series, edition Scientia)
Editional board:	J. Kotásek (chairman), J. Bejček, J. Hurdík, V. Kalvodová,
	      V. Kratochvíl , P. Mrkývka, R. Polčák, N. Rozehnalová
1st edition, 2015
ISBN 978-80-210-7883-3
9 788021 078833
ISBN 978-80-210-7883-3