Home

In recent issues of Your Expert Witness we have highlighted the on-going issue of unqualified people carrying out illegal tooth whitening – and the efforts being made by the General Dental Council (GDC) to bring offenders to book. Since the last issue highlighted a case in Wales there have been prosecutions in Orpington, Salford and London.

At the end of last year the legal position on tooth whitening of the GDC received the backing of the organisation that brings together all European dental regulators. FEDCAR – the Federation of European Dental Competent Authorities and Regulators – published a statement endorsing its approach as the one to be used across Europe.

On 12 December the European Parliament voted to implement a common European patent law. It follows an agreement earlier this year to unify the patent courts into three centres in the UK, Germany and France.

According to a release issued by the Parliament: "After over 30 years of talks, a new regime will cut the cost of an EU patent by up to 80%, making it more competitive vis-à-vis the US and Japan. MEPs cut costs for small firms and tailored the regime to their needs, in a compromise deal with the Council endorsed by Parliament on Tuesday."

Bernhard Rapkay, the German MEP who led on the regulation setting up the unitary system, commented: "Intellectual property must not stop at borders. The path towards the introduction of the EU patent was long and troubled, but ultimately it has been worth the effort. Today's vote is good news for EU economy and especially for European small and medium enterprises."

Italian MEP Raffaele Baldassarre, who led talks on the regime for translating EU patents, described the current regime as "...effectively a tax on innovation".

"For a consumer to be able to sue a foreign trader before the national courts, it is not necessary that the contract at issue was concluded at a distance."

That was the conclusion drawn from a judgement by the European Court of Justice on 6 September, following referral of a case from the Supreme Court in Austria.

It means in practice that the fact that a consumer travels to another member state to conclude a contract with a trader does not therefore prevent the courts of the consumer's member state from having jurisdiction, according to a statement from the court.

The Austrian Supreme Court, as the court of final appeal in that country, was hearing an action brought by an Austrian woman against a German motor trader.

The woman, a Ms Mühlleitner, "seeks rescission of the contract for the sale of the vehicle she bought from [the dealer] for her private use. Ms Mühlleitner came across the offer...by searching on the internet. However, to sign the contract of purchase and take delivery of the vehicle, she went to Hamburg. On her return to Austria she discovered that the vehicle was defective."

The dealers refused to repair the vehicle and disputed the jurisdiction of the Austrian courts after the subsequent legal action by Ms Mühlleitner. They argued that the contract was not 'concluded at a distance'.

The Court of Justice, however, held that, as of 2004, the "consumer's possibility of bringing proceedings before the courts of his member state against a trader domiciled in another member state is not subject to the condition that the contract was concluded at a distance".

The release issued by the court states: "EU law aims to protect the consumer, as the weaker party to the contract, in cross-border disputes by facilitating his access to the courts, in particular by geographical proximity of the court which has jurisdiction. The consumer may thus sue in his national courts a trader with whom he has concluded a contract, even if the trader is domiciled in another member state, on two conditions: first, the trader must pursue commercial or professional activities in the member state in which the consumer resides or, by any means (for example, via the internet), direct such activities to that member state and, secondly, the contract at issue must fall within the scope of such activities."

• This is a news story derived from an unofficial document issued for press use.

The American Bar Association has announced the establishment of a task force to review and make recommendations on the state of legal education and its responsiveness to the needs and opportunities of the legal market.

The Task Force on the Future of Legal Education will be chaired by recently retired Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T Shepard (pictured). The announcement was made ahead of the ABA's annual meeting in Chicago.

ABA president William T (Bill) Robinson III said: "The growing public attention to the cost of a law school education, the uncertain job prospects for law school graduates and the delivery of legal services in a changing market warrant substantial examination and analysis by the ABA and the legal profession. Legal education must be evaluated in the context of the marketplace and the nation's and world's unprecedented challenges in an ever-more complex global economy."