A natural person domiciled in a Member State who concludes with a company established in another Member State a contract to play poker on the internet on that company's general terms and conditions does not lose the status of a "consumer" within Article 15(1), where that person has neither officially declared that activity nor offered it to third parties as a paid service, even if that person plays for a large number of hours per day and receives substantial winnings from that game.

A passenger's compensation claim against an operating air carrier with which the passenger did not conclude a contract does not fall within Articles 15 to 17 on special jurisdiction over consumer contracts.

A user of a private Facebook account does not lose consumer status merely because that user publishes books, gives lectures, operates websites, raises funds, or has numerous consumers' claims assigned to him for enforcement.

Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001, read in conjunction with Article 16(1), may - in so far as it concerns a contract concluded in the context of a commercial or professional activity directed by the professional to the Member State of the consumer's domicile - also apply to a contract between the same consumer and professional that, on its own, does not fall within that directed activity, provided that it is closely linked to a contract previously concluded by those same parties in the context of that activity. It is for the national court to determine whether that link exists, in particular whether the parties to both contracts are identical in law or in fact, whether both contracts have the same economic objective concerning the same specific subject-matter, and whether the second contract complements the first by making it possible for the first contract's economic objective to be achieved.

A consumer who acquired a bearer bond from a third-party professional cannot rely on Article 15(1) against the bond issuer, for claims based on the bond conditions, breach of information and control obligations, and prospectus liability, if no contract was concluded between that consumer and the issuer - which it is for the national court to verify.

Article 15(1)(c) does not require a causal link between the means used to direct the commercial or professional activity to the Member State of the consumer's domicile - namely an internet site - and the conclusion of the contract with that consumer. The existence of such a causal link is, however, evidence of the connection between the contract and that activity.

A natural person with close professional links to a company, such as its managing director or majority shareholder, is not a "consumer" when giving an aval on a promissory note issued to guarantee that company's obligations under a credit contract. Article 15(1) therefore does not apply to jurisdiction in proceedings by the payee of that note, established in one Member State, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State, even where the note was incomplete when signed and was later completed by the payee.

For Article 15(1)(c), the contract between the consumer and the trader need not be concluded at a distance.

A contract for a voyage by freighter, such as the one at issue in Case C-585/08, is a transport contract that, for an inclusive price, provides a combination of travel and accommodation within the meaning of Article 15(3) of Regulation No 44/2001.

To decide whether a trader is 'directing' its activity to the Member State of the consumer's domicile within the meaning of Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001, it must be determined whether, before any contract was concluded, it was apparent from the website and the trader's overall activity that the trader envisaged doing business with consumers domiciled in one or more Member States, including that Member State, and was minded to conclude a contract with them. Evidence capable of showing that - the list not being exhaustive - includes the international nature of the activity; mention of itineraries from other Member States to the place where the trader is established; use of a language or currency other than that generally used in the trader's Member State, with the possibility of making and confirming the reservation in that other language; mention of telephone numbers with an international code; expenditure on an internet referencing service to facilitate access by consumers in other Member States; use of a top-level domain name other than that of the trader's Member State; and mention of an international clientele of customers domiciled in various Member States. It is for the national courts to determine whether such evidence exists. Mere accessibility of the trader's or intermediary's website in the consumer's Member State is not enough. Nor are the mention of an email address or other contact details, or the use of a language or currency generally used in the trader's Member State.

Where a mail-order company in another Member State sends a consumer a personalised letter, intended to induce the consumer to conclude a contract, that gives the impression the consumer will receive a prize if he returns the attached 'prize claim certificate', and the prize does not depend on ordering goods or placing a trial order, the consumer's action in the courts of his domicile for payment of that prize falls under Article 15(1)(c) only if the vendor is legally bound to pay the prize. If the vendor is not legally bound to pay it, the action falls under Article 15(1)(c) only if the consumer actually placed an order with that vendor.