Choice of court clause in consumer contracts (e-distance)

Recital 10 of the Consumer Rights Directive states that Rome I has priority over the provisions that are stated in the CRD. Thus, the applicable law to a contract must be tried under the Rome I Regulation which, under article 6(1) states that a consumer contract "shall be governed by the law of the country where the consumer has his habitual residence, provided that the professional (a) pursues his commercial or professional activities in the country where the consumer has his habitual residence, or (b) by any means, directs such activities to that country or to several countries including that country, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities". Thus, no uniform code on this exists and it is up to the court to decide this. Article 6(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (UNCITRAL) states that “the sole fact that a party makes use of a domain name or electronic mail address connected to a specific country does not create a presumption that its place of business is located in that country”. The national contract law of the consumer where he is habitually resident or where the trader directs such activities or to several countries applies to the contract, unless agreed otherwise by the parties to the contract. Where the parties have chosen to apply different contract law than that of the consumer, that choice may not deprive the consumer of the protection afforded by mandatory provisions of the member state where he is habitually resident. Where the trader directs his website at consumers in a particular member state, the language of consumers. The judgement of the CJEU in the joined cases Peter Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH establishes that a website is 'directed' at a specific Member State where the website owner uses different languages or currencies on the website.