Международная подсудность споров из договоров с участием потребителя
The rapid development of technology leads to the deepening of globalization processes, in particular the extensive growth of e-commerce, which is becoming increasingly international in nature. The Internet provides the opportunity to remotely purchase items, not represented in the local market, which leads to the development of cross-border retail trade. From a legal point of view, one of the main problems of this phenomenon is to protect consumers’ rights in cross-border aspect. Private international law provides consumers with protection of three types: procedural, conflict of laws and substantive. Of paramount importance is the question of the international jurisdiction: the court of which country is competent to settle disputes arising from cross-border consumer contract? The special status of the consumer as an economically weaker party does not allow being limited to the general rules of jurisdiction. EU law, as the legislations of many countries in other regions of the world, contains specific procedural conflict rules that are based on certain principles establish the jurisdiction of the court of a State to hear disputes from consumer contracts. In Russia, such a regulation is missing. Thus, the Russian system of consumer protection in cross-border aspect is deprived of an essential element. For the purpose of making recommendations on improving Russian private international law, the paper discusses the content of particular articles of the Regulations of Brussels I — a fundamental act of the EU in the field of the regulation of international jurisdiction, as well as doctrinal positions of foreign scientists. The article concludes on the need to limit the autonomy of the parties in determining the jurisdiction of disputes involving contracts with consumers. The basis of the solution of procedural conflict question may be, as well as in European law, the criterion for targeted activities that solves a number of issues. At the same time, this criterion gives rise to new theoretical and practical problems that have not yet had any solution in the doctrine and legislation — the definition of directed activity per se, as well as the scope of business or professional activities that we need to know to determine the status of the consumer.