Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)

must be interpreted as not applying to a contract concluded between a consumer and a bank where the conditions set out in that provision were not met on the date on which that contract was concluded, but are subsequently met.

If a consumer contract falls within Article 6(1) of Regulation No 593/2008, the parties may choose the applicable law under Article 3, but that choice cannot deprive the consumer of the protection of provisions from which the law otherwise applicable under Article 6(1) does not allow derogation by agreement - namely, the law of the country where the consumer has his or her habitual residence. Because Article 6(2) is mandatory and exhaustive, it cannot be set aside even in favour of legislation allegedly more favourable to the consumer.

Where the conditions for Article 21(2) are satisfied, the reservation in Article 6(1) concerning the application of Article 21(2) prevents a Member State court from applying its national jurisdiction rules, even if those rules are more favourable to the employee. Where the conditions for Article 21(2) or any other provision listed in Article 6(1) are not satisfied, Article 6(1) allows the court to apply those national rules to determine jurisdiction.

Parties to an individual employment contract are, in principle, free to choose the law applicable to that contract even if the choice-of-law clause was drafted by the employer and the employee merely accepted it.

A trust agreement under which services owed to a consumer are provided, at a distance from another country, in the country of the consumer's habitual residence does not fall within the exclusion in Article 5(4)(b) of the Rome Convention and Article 6(4)(a) of Regulation No 593/2008.

A non-negotiated choice-of-law term in a trust agreement between a professional and a consumer for the management of shares in a limited partnership, selecting the law of the Member State of the partnership's seat, is unfair where it gives the consumer the impression that only that law applies and does not inform the consumer that, under Article 5(2) of the Rome Convention and Article 6(2) of Regulation No 593/2008, the consumer also enjoys the protection of the mandatory provisions of the national law that would apply without that term.

Without prejudice to Article 1(3) of Regulations No 593/2008 and No 864/2007, the law applicable to an action for an injunction within the meaning of Directive 2009/22 against the use of allegedly unfair contractual terms by an undertaking established in one Member State and concluding contracts by electronic commerce with consumers resident in other Member States, including the State of the court seised, is determined under Article 6(1) of Regulation No 864/2007. The law applicable to the assessment of a particular contractual term is always determined under Regulation No 593/2008, whether that assessment is made in an individual action or a collective action.

Under Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, a non-negotiated term in the general terms and conditions of a seller or supplier which states that an online consumer contract is governed by the law of the Member State where the seller or supplier is established is unfair, in so far as it misleads the consumer into thinking that only that law applies, without informing the consumer that Article 6(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 also gives the consumer the protection of the mandatory provisions of the law that would apply without that term; that is for the national court to ascertain in the light of all the relevant circumstances.