English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The judgment of the Fifth Chamber of the Court in Ángel Lorenzo Gonz´lez Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE does not concern startling subject matter, nor is the ruling a surprise. The Court concluded that the exclusion of insurance contracts from the scope of Directive 85/577 on doorstep selling was apt to cover unit-linked insurance contracts. The interest in the ruling lies in the Court's declaration for the third time in recent years that the protection of consumers pursued by the EU's rules is not absolute and is subject to certain limits. The purpose of this note is not to deny this nor to quarrel with the outcome of the Court's cases, but rather to caution that this approach should not be elevated to an interpretative principle apt to challenge the longstanding and constitutionally proper assumption that the EU's legislative acquis shall benefit from a pro-consumer interpretation. In particular it should be appreciated – as the Fifth Chamber appears not to appreciate – that this latest ruling is not of precisely the same type as earlier rulings in which the Court has referred to the limits of consumer protection under EU law.

Consumer protection under EU law ‘is not absolute’: yes, but be careful!