The providers of telemedia services, indicating a chargeable value-added service number on its website as a possibility for a contact in addition to his e-mail address, thus providing no further communication available, of the requirements of § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG corresponds to effective communication:

For a reconciliation of the establishment of a value-added service number with § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG and Art. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC initially speaks the text of those provisions, with indication of contact information quick, to enable direct and effective communication. As the Court of Appeal rightly pointed out, can-than-usual traffic charges and is dependent on the not always influenced by the caller of a value-added service number length of a call phone costs may discourage the user a telemedia service by contacting (BGH, Wheat 2007, 723 Rn. 15 - Internet insurance). They can not therefore be regarded as efficient.

Urteil BGH I ZR 238/14 from 25. February 2016 – Value-added services number in Contacts

UWG § 3a; e-commerce directive Article. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c; TMG § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2; Directive 2011/83 / EU Art. 6 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c and f, Art. 6 Abs. 8, Art. 21

a) The providers of telemedia services, indicating a cost-; value-added services number on its website as possi-sensitivity for a contact in addition to his e-mail address, thus providing no further Kom-munikationsweg available, of the requirements of § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG corresponds to effective communication.

b) The information requirements contained in Directive 2000/31 / EC and by the directional-line 2011/83 / EU is available in principle independently.

BGH, Judgment of 25. February 2016 – I ZR 238/14 – OLG Frankfurt am Main

LG Frankfurt am Main

There I. Civil Division of the Federal Court from the oral negotiation 25. February 2016 by the presiding judge Prof. Dr. Buescher, die Richter Prof. Dr. Schaffert, Dr. Loeffler, Judge Dr. Schwonke and the judge Feddersen
hereby:
The appeal from the judgment of the 6. Civil Division of the Court-Frankfurt from 2. October 2014 is rejected at the expense of the defendant.
Of right
Facts:
The parties distribute on the Internet a variety of products. Her products include bicycle trailer.
The defendant gave the 15. September 2012 on its website as possi-sensitivity for a contact in addition to their postal address an e-mail address and a phone number as well as the costs incurred by 49 Cents per minute from a landline and up to 2,99 € per minute from a mobile network to. They also pointed in the imprint on one with these Te-
1
2
– 3 –
lefonnummer and their costs identical fax number. A contact on the Internet asked the defendant not available to users.
The applicant believes that the reference to a fee-based value-added services number a breach of the obligation of the defendant, As an associated Bidder telemedia services fast, to enable direct and effective communication to their.
The applicant – applicable for the revision of significance – sought,
the defendant under the threat of unspecified order means to verurtei-len, to refrain, to refer in business for purposes of competition within the provider on a fee-based value-added services number, if this occurs as from below one-bedazzled conditioning K1 visible:
3
4
– 4 –
– 5 –
– 6 –
The District Court (LG Frankfurt am Main, CR 2014, 615) the defendant condemned in the terms sought. The defendants' appeal has remained without success (OLG Frankfurt, GRUR-RR 2015, 17 = WRP 2014, 1478). With its approved by Beru-fung court Revision, their rejection, the applicant bean-carries, pursuing their request to dismiss the defendant further.
Reasons:
I. The Court of Appeal has the application for an injunction as to § 8 Abs. 1 and 3, §§ 3, 4 No.. 11 UWG in conjunction with § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG and § 5a Abs. 2 and 4 UWG deemed justified. For this purpose it has carried out:
The Court of Justice of the European Union to the § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG underlying provision of Article. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC on certain aspects of information society services, in particular electronic Geschäftsver-traffic, in the internal market of users must receive information, which enabled him-clear, quickly to contact the service provider and directly and efficiently communicate with him. A telephone contact was basically Although a direct and effective means of communication. Given the information required by the defendant, at the upper limit of the ge-pursuant to § 66d Abs. 1 However TKG allowed for so-called premium services Verbin-formation rates lying charges stelle specifying their Mehrwertdienstenum-mer no efficient contact possibilities are.
5
6
7
– 7 –
II. The directed against this judgment appeal by the Respondent does not succeed. The Court of Appeal is the result of true out-addressed, that the applicant, the alleged injunction ge-pursuant to § 8 Abs. 1 and 3, §§ 3, 4 No.. 11 UWG aF in conjunction with § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG is entitled. After following the adoption of the appeal verdict in force getrete plans amending the law relating to unfair competition results in the lawsuit claim under § 8 Abs. 1 and 3 No.. 1, §§ 3, 3a UWG in conjunction with § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG. has characterized itself to the substance, nothing changed (BGH, Judgment of 14. January 2016 – I ZR 61/14, Wheat 2016, 516 Rn. 11 = WRP 2016, 581 – We help in bereavement).
1. The Court of Appeal was right to consider them, that the Be-humor of § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG is a market conduct regulation within the meaning of § 3 UWG (§ 4 No.. 11 UWG aF) represents.
a) § 3a UWG (§ 4 No.. 11 UWG aF) presupposes, that an offender Hand-lung against a legal provision exists, intended also, to regulate the market conduct in the interest of market participants. The Vorschrif th, in the interest of market participants, in particular consumers, regulate the behavior of enterprises, include those provisions, the implementation of Article. 5 serve to Directive 2000/31 / EC (vgl. Recital-No reasons. 7, 10 and 11 Directive 2000/31 / EC). As provisions, govern the information obligations regarding provider identification, takes them as Ver-braucherschutzvorschriften one related to the fairness of competition protection to. The information requirements of § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG, type. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c implements Directive 2000/31 / EC into German law, serve the transparency of business-services Telemedia services and thereby protect the consumer. The fact, that the information obligations towards the community of users – Consumers and businesses-
8
9
10
– 8 –
more – consist, does not preclude the. They therefore Markverhaltensre-managed within the meaning of § 3 UWG (§ 4 No.. 11 UWG aF) but (vgl. BGH, Judgment of 20. July 2006 – I ZR 228/03, Wheat 2007, 159 Rn. 15 = WRP 2006, 1507 – Provider identification in Internet, to § 6 TDG aF; Decision of 26. April 2007 – I ZR 190/04, Wheat 2007, 723 Rn. 9 = WRP 2007, 797 – Internet insurance; Köhler in Köhler / Bornkamm, UWG, 34. Ed, § 3a Rn. 1.309 f.; MünchKomm.UWG/Schaffert, 2. Ed, § 4 No.. 11 Rn. 322, each with further references). Not even the fact does not change, that violations of § 5 Abs. 1 TMG as an administrative offense pursuant to § 16 Abs. 2 TMG are sanctioned (vgl. BGH, Judgment of 30. July 2015 – I ZR 29/12, Wheat 2016, 392 Rn. 16 = WRP 2016, 467 – Booking System II).
b) The recognition of this provision as a market conduct regulation within the meaning of § 3 UWG (§ 4 No.. 11 UWG aF) is consistent with EU law compatible. Directive 2005/29 / EC on Unfair Commercial Practices, in its on-scope (Art. 3 of Directive) led to a complete harmonization of fair trading law. It regulates the question of unfairness of Ge-business practices in business-to-consumer-Chern finally. Accordingly, a breach of national provisions Be-an unfairness under § 3a UWG (§ 4 No.. 11 UWG aF) in principle-lich justify only, if the schemes have a basis in EU law (vgl. BGH, Judgment of 29. April 2010 – I ZR 23/08, Wheat 2010, 652 Rn. 11 = WRP 2010, 872 – Costa del Sol; Judgment of 31. More 2012 – I ZR 45/11, Wheat 2012, 949 Rn. 47 = WRP 2012, 1086 – Abusive penalty, mwN). This is the case here. The provision of § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG has its basis in Art. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC and constitutes union regulations about the general information requirements of service providers in national law to. It follows at the same time, that § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG conformity with the directive, So un mainly-
11
– 9 –
taking into account the purpose of Directive, must be interpreted (vgl. BGH, Judgment of 21. December 2011 I ZR 190/10, Wheat 2012, 842 Rn. 21 = WRP 2012, 1096 New passenger cars I, mwN).
2. The court accepted, that the defendant Services provider within the meaning of § 2 No.. 1 TMG is and it is their Internet offer businesslike a, Telemedia service offered for consideration within the meaning of § 5 Abs. 1 TMG is, justified the compulsory identification of the provider. This assumption is not attacked by the auditors and reveals no error of law.
3. The defendant did not submit any further commu-nikationsweg available next to their e-mail address, of the requirements of § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG corresponds to a direct and effective communication.
a) Under that provision, service providers have for businesslike, Offered usually paid Telemedia details, a fast electronic contact and direct communication with them, he-out, including electronic mail address, easily recognizable bar, hold directly accessible and constantly available. This provision seeks to implement Article. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC. Since-according to service providers to users of the service and the relevant authorities details, including electronic mail address, easily identifiable, hold directly accessible and constantly available, it ermögli-chen, quickly to contact the service provider and directly and efficiently communicate with him. The European Court of Uni-on has opted, that the service provider must provide recipients of the service before the contract in addition to the electronic mail address other infor-nen available, the contacted rapidly and
12
13
14
– 10 –
allow direct and effective communication. This information does not necessarily include a telephone number. You can relate a Electr-tronic request mask, on may contact the user of the service at home ternet to the service provider, whereupon the latter responds with electronic-shear Post (ECJ, Judgment of 16. October 2008 – C-298/07, Slg. 2008, I-7841, A = 2008, 3553 Rn. 40 – Consumer Federation / DIV). As communication channels, satisfy the criteria of direct and effi-cient communication, can also be a personal contact with a person in charge at the premises of the service provider or a communication via fax are considered (ECJ, NJW 2008, 3553 Rn. 31, 35 – Consumer Federation / DIV). The service provider is obliged in any case, recipients of the service an additional quick addition to his electronic mail address, to provide immediate and effective means of communication available (ECJ, NJW 2008, 3553 Rn. 25 – Consumer Federation / DIV). These standards do not meet the opened by the defendant contact receiving options.
b) In vain, the revision refers to the Opinion of Gene-ralanwalts Colomer 15. More 2008 (C-298/07). its conception, that the idea of ​​consumer protection for the interpretation of Article. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC is not relevant and that provision obliging the service provider only for specifying an electronic mail address, and not also for provision of a second communication path, answer to requests of the user (Rn. 45, 49, 51 the Opinion), has the Court of the European Union not connected (ECJ, NJW 2008, 3553 Rn. 17, 22, 25 – Consumer Federation / DIV).
15
– 11 –
c) Unsuccessfully that the revision contends, the defendant had their type of. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC and § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG met fol-lowing information obligations characterized, that in addition to the in each case to be specified E-mail address (“Electronic mail address”) their (Post-)address SPECIFIED. The obligation to show an address results from § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 1 TMG, type. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. converts b Directive 2000/31 / EC into German law. It consists in addition to the inde-gen information obligations under Article. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC and § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG. In addition, the postal service does not satisfy the requirement required by the Court of the European Union sufficiently rapid communication (vgl. ECJ, NJW 2008, 3553 Rn. 31, 35 – Consumer Federation / DIV). The Court of the European Union has therefore not even mentioned the Ver-obligation to indicate a postal address in the To-connection with the entry of the communication paths, as referred to in Article. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC are sufficient to-see (vgl. ECJ, NJW 2008, 3553 Rn. 18, 31 – Consumer Federation / DIV).
d) Has no meaning for the decision of the dispute, it is, that the defendant also refers to a fax number evidenced by the on-screen in the injunctive Inter-netseiten in their Contacts. Although a means of communication via fax in principle within the meaning of § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG sufficient communication can be considered, applies in relation to the fax connection made available by the defendant otherwise than for the telephone number, because of the use of the fax rise to the same charges as for the use of telecommunication communication.
16
17
– 12 –
and) Opened by the defendant possibility of contact through a fee-based value-added services number does not meet the require- ments of §- 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG.
aa) The court accepted, the cost telefoni-rule consult the service providers provided a significant hurdle for many consumers is and might discourage circumstances of a Kontaktauf-acquisition. From an efficient – in terms of effective and eco-nomic – Possible contacts could no longer be considered, if the costs were likely, deterred a significant number of customers contacted by a telephone contact. That applies Telefonkos th of 2,99 € / minute from a mobile network, which at the upper limit in accordance with § 66d Abs. 1 TKG for so-called “Premium services” permissible Ver-bond prices subject, the case. The cost savings of the Be-defendants related, which would you ver-create a competitive advantage over its competitors, was not with the consumer policy objectives of § 5 TMG compatible. This also applies therefore, because the connection fee was suitable, to generate another source of income for the defendant. This assessment considers the revision legal scrutiny as a result was.
bb) The Court of Appeal adopted applicable, that a tele-fonanruf can basically be considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union as a direct and effective communication (vgl. ECJ, NJW 2008, 3553 Rn. 28 – Consumer Bun-desverband / DIV).
cc) The costs associated with contacting the defendant, on the basic fare for a phone call excess amount preclude the An-acceptance of an efficient communication path. This is the interpretation-
18
19
20
21
– 13 –
tion of § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG and the Art. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC.
(1) Neither the wording nor from the history of Art. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC and § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG does, however,, that the need-to make way for a contact free for users to be from the service provider (vgl. Ernst, ECR ITR 2/2009 Note. 2 under D.; Heckmann Heckmann, ju-risPK Internet law, 4. Ed, Gets. 4.2 Rn. 259; Micklitz / Schirmbacher in locker-ler / Schuster, Law of electronic media, 3. Ed, § 5 TMG Rn. 58; Mul-ler-Broich, TMG, § 5 Rn. 9). Both provisions include a cost Belas-tung for users not already in principle from. The user must therefore bear after contact with the use of a communication means, the übli-cherweise incurred call charges. These are the costs, responsible for sending an e-mail, apply a fax or a call from the fixed-network or mobile network. A service provider is therefore not bound, set up a toll-free number.
(2) For a reconciliation of the establishment of a value-added service number with § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG and Art. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC initially speaks the text of those provisions, with indication of contact information quick, to enable direct and effective communication. As the General Court of Appeals conducted from-N, can-than-usual traffic charges and is dependent on the not always influenced by the caller of a value-added service number length of a call phone costs discourage the users of Tele Medi-endienstes from becoming involved (BGH, Wheat 2007, 723 Rn. 15 – Internet insurance). They therefore can not be as efficient angese-hen.
22
23
– 14 –
(3) Against the qualification of a value-added service number as an efficient way of contacting also speaks of the meaning and purpose of the aforementioned provisions. See further details on Anbie-terkennzeichnung the interests of consumer protection and transparency of business-services telemedia services before. After the jurisdiction-law of the Court of the European Union by the Diensteanbie-ter information provided to enable users, to assess the scope of their obligation to future-and thus avoid the risk of certain errors, which may lead to the conclusion of an unfavorable contract (ECJ, NJW 2008, 3553 Rn. 23 – Consumer Federation / DIV). A service provider, which, besides the communication via e-mail only a telephone contact or via fax, must therefore do not charge additional fees for this, the usual Verbin-tion charges, arising from the use of the communications medium anyway, exceed (vgl. Ernst, ECR ITR 2/2009 Note. 2 under D.; Fezer/Mankowski, UWG, 2. Ed, § 4-S12 Rn. 169; Lorenz, The provider identification drawing on the Internet, 2007, 168 f.; lesson., Hit 2009, 295, 297 f.; Rätze, Hit 2015, 25, 26; Vogt, ITRB 2015, 7, 8; aA v. Gravenreuth / Small Jung, JurPC Web-Dok. 273/2003 Abs. 7 ff.; Heckmann Heckmann ibid Cape. 4.2 Rn. 259; Mul-ler-Broich supra § 5 Rn. 9; BeckOK Informations- and Media Law / Ott, 11. Edi-tion, Stand: 2. February 2016, § 5 TMG Rn. 38; Schulte, CR 2004, 55, 56; lesson., MR 2004, 444, 445; vgl. also Micklitz / Schirmbacher in Spindler / Schuster supra § 5 TMG Rn. 58). With regard to the spatial separation of potential Ver-Parties in Internet traffic requiring a rapid contact-shot and a direct and effective communication in addition to the pre-contractual information where possible, post-contractual law-enforcement or an indication of possible rights violations by egg-nen service provider is on its website (vgl. Lorenz, Hit 2009, 295, 298;
24
– 15 –
lesson., WRP 2010, 1224, 1226; Micklitz / Schirmbacher in Spindler / Schuster supra § 5 TMG Rn. 2; BeckOK Informations- and Media Law / Ott supra § 5 TMG Rn. 3).
(4) In this context, it is not of decisive importance, that according to the findings of the court costs contacting the defendant with a call over the cellular network to the legal limit for phone numbers for premium services in accordance with § 66d Abs. 1 move TKG and for calls from landlines to Anga ben the defendant to incur costs of 49 are calculated cents / minute. Fallen – as in the case of dispute – special costs for telephone contact at, which does not occur in a normal phone call from a landline or mobile phone, lacks independent of the specifically calculated Verbin-dung repay to effective communication (vgl. this Heckmann Heckmann ibid Cape. 4.2 Rn. 253.1, 259.1; Müller-Broich supra § 5 Rn. 9; BeckOK Informations- and Media Law / Ott supra § 5 TMG Rn. 38). The fact, that a touch of special and linked beforehand hardly Kalku-lierbare costs, leads to the experience of life more likely, Kon-takt shots to prevent than to allow them.
dd) In vain alleges the revision, such interpretation is cons-opposition to Directive 2011/83 / EU on consumer rights and the regulated therein information requirements for distance- and closed outside business grant contracts.
(1) The provisions of this Directive in the interpretation of § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG is not undermined by the fact, that they at the time of the facts alleged by the applicant the defendants' conduct in 2012 not yet been transposed into German law and that the transposition deadline, the
25
26
27
– 16 –
in style of. 28 Abs. 1 Directive 2011/83 / EU until 13. December 2013 ran, had not yet expired. The supported on re-offending sub-lassungsanspruch is only, if the act complained of is for revision-onsinstanz unlawful both at the time of their implementation, as well as in the time of the decision (st. Case law.; vgl. only BGH, Judgment of 22. April 2009 – I ZR 216/06, Wheat 2009, 845 Rn. 38 = WRP 2009, 1001 – Internet-Video-recorder I; Judgment of 24. September 2013 – I ZR 73/12, Wheat 2014, 405 Rn. 8 = WRP 2014, 429 – Atemtest II, each with further references). When Directive 2011/83 / EU on the above under II 3 e cc made interpretation of Article. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c would of Directive 2000/31 / EC to change something and lead to the assumption, that under the provider of service providers ne-ben the release of the e-mail address is sufficient to specify a chargeable value-added service number, , this would be contrary to the alleged sub-lassungsanspruch. However, this is not the case.
(2) Not Art. 6 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2011/83 / EU informed the entrepreneur for distance selling- and off-premises contracts CLOSED-nected consumers, before the consumer is bound by contract, in a clear and comprehensible manner on the address of the place, where the Un-entrepreneur is established, and possibly his phone number, Fax number and e-mail address, allow consumers to quickly contact him and communicate with him efficiently, and, where appropriate, the address and the identity of the entrepreneur, on whose behalf he is. Gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 BUCHST. f of Directive 2011/83 / EU, he also has the cost of using the means for contracting Fernkommuni-Tele- specify, if they are not charged at the basic rate. The provisions of § 312 para. 1 BGB and Art. 246a § 1 Abs. 1 No.. 2 and 6 EGBGB set type. 6 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c and f of Directive 2011/83 / EU into German law.
28
– 17 –
Member States shall by Type. 21 Abs. 1 Directive 2011/83 / EU for, that the consumer is not obliged, to pay for a telephone con-tacting with the entrepreneur more than the base fare, if the entrepreneur has set up a telephone line, by phone to take with him in connec-tion with the concluded contract Contact. § 312a Abs. 5 Set 1 BGB is the implementation of Article. 21 Abs. 1 of the directive-never 2011/83 / EU. This regulation ensures, that the entrepreneur from the communication specifically provided no profit and the consumer personal contact with the contractor for Fra-gen to the contract or the exercise of rights is not therefore avoids, because incurring any additional costs (vgl. Justification of the Director-insurance design to implement the Consumer Rights Directive and amending-tion of the law regulating the property agency, BT-pressure. 17/ 12637, S. 52; Whores / Föhlisch, CR 2014, 242; Palandt / Grüneberg, BGB, 75. Ed, § 312a Rn. 6; MünchKomm.BGB / Wendehorst, 7. Ed, § 312a Rn. 73).
Although this results from Article. 6 Abs. 1 BUCHST. f of Directive 2011/83 / EU and those rules into German law transposing those pre-writing, that the entrepreneur towards the consumer for the ex-conclusion of a distance contract may be-give a paid phone number, if when they are used incurred costs above the basic rate and the entrepreneur these costs notifies in advance (vgl. to Hoeren / Föhlisch, CR 2014, 242 f.). On the other hand the consumer under Articles. 21 Abs. 1 no obligation in Directive 2011/83 / EU incorporating into the German legislation, to pay for a telephone contact with the contractor more than the base fare, if the entrepreneur a telephone line
29
30
– 18 –
has set up, to phone to contact him in connection with the closed Ver-contract.
(3) However, these rules to the information requirements for Fernabsatzver-contracts for the decision in the dispute, where it comes to the Infor-tion obligations of the service provider to the user, without loading importance.
This follows, contrary to the audit response, however, from Article. 3 Abs. 2 Directive 2011/83 / EU, the orders-a subsidiarity the Directive in the event of collision with other provisions of Union law. Rather, the information requirements contained in Directive 2000/31 / EC and Directive 2011/83 / EU in principle exist independently. Thus, Directive 2000/31 / EC provides in recital 11 end before, that they in the Directive 97/7 / EC on consumer protection in treaty business distance selling – which has been superseded by Directive 2011/83 / EU – introduced information requirements and expanded upon. Accordingly, to reverse the measures provided for in Directive 2011/83 / EU information obligations to the recital 12 and Art. 6 Abs. 8 subparagraph. 1 complement the information requirements laid down in Directive 2000/31 / EC or additionally apply.
Collisions with a provision of Directive 2000/31 / EC Subject Author-fend the content of the information and the way, how the information is be-reit note, However, the Directive 2011/83 / EU, pursuant to Article. 6 Abs. 8 subparagraph. 2 priority. Such conflict is in dispute, however, is not at issue. The information requirements under Article. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC and those to kind. 6 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c and f and Art. 21 Directive 2011/83 / EU concern different situations. In Art. 6 Abs. 1
31
32
33
– 19 –
BUCHST. c of Directive 2011/83 / EU are the entrepreneurs communicated before contract conclusion information listed on his identity and Kontaktmög-ties. Art. 6 Abs. 1 BUCHST. f of Directive 2011/83 / EU concerning the obligation to provide information regarding the cost of the land under contract Communication Technology, Art. 21 of that Directive, the cost of the telephone line after the conclusion, where the undertaking has established such a telephone line, ie special situations, where the consumer with the entrepreneur makes contact. In contrast regulates Art. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC all forms of Kontaktauf-acceptance of the user to the service provider regardless of the means of communication used and regardless of, whether a contract before-is or has already taken place.
f) The violation of the defendant against § 5 Abs. 1 No.. 2 TMG is felt within the meaning of § 3 UWG (§ 3 Abs. 2 Set 1 UWG aF). Die in Art. 5 Directive 2000/31 / EC and § 5 Abs. 1 TMG specified information requirements gel-th by Type. 7 Abs. 5 in conjunction with Annex II of Directive 2005/29 / EC, in the Art. 5 has led to Directive 2000/31 / EC, Always as much. Will withheld information, which classifies EU law as essential, is about equal to the requirement of appreciable met (vgl. BGH, Wheat 2012, 842 Rn. 25 New passenger cars I; Wheat 2016, 392 Rn. 23 – Booking system II, each with further references).
g) The adoption of the Appeal Court, the injunction was justified in terms of the whole range of the defendant and not limited to those products of the defendant, where there is a competitive relationship in relation to the applicant-clotting, because an operation- and vorliege no per-duktbezogene infringing act, does not attack the revision. This assessment also reveals no error of law.
34
35
– 20 –
III. A reference to the Court of the European Union under Article. 267 Abs. 1 BUCHST. b and para. 3 TFEU ​​is not caused.
1. The answers to the contentious decisive question, whether the Ready Stel-ment of a telephone number as a value-added service number in the context of on-provider labeling as immediate and effective means of communication within the meaning of Art. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC is to be considered, un-is subject with regard to the decision of the Court of the European Union by 16. October 2008 (NJW 2008, 3553 – Federation of German Consumer-union / DIV) no reasonable doubt, so that a search-Vorabentscheidungser is not offered (vgl. ECJ, Judgment of 6. October 1982 – C-283/81, Slg. 1982, 3415 Rn. 21 =, A 1983, 1257 – C.I.L.F.I.T.). The ratio of Directive 2011/83 / EU Directive 2000/31 / EC, in view of recital-grounds of both policy and with regard to Article. 6 Abs. 8 Directive 2011/83 / EU also no doubt and does not require recourse to the Ge Tribunal of the European Union.
2. The decision of the Court of the European Union by 16. October 2008 (NJW 2008, 3553 – Consumer Federation / DIV) needs contrary to the revision no clarification. The CJEU stated therein, the message of the electronic mail address and an inquiry template, on the users of the service may contact the Internet to the service provider, wo-up of this electronic mail reply, then not sufficient to require- ments of-Art. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Directive 2000/31 / EC, when a user of the service by electronic contact with the service provider does not have access to the electronic network and this other to access to a, no electronic communication requesting (NJW 2008, 3553
36
37
38
– 21 –
Rn. 36, 38 – Consumer Federation / DIV). This challenged by the appeal as contradictory versions concerning the exceptional case, that a user and asks to already successful electronic contact due to lack of access to the electronic network to the service provider who-det him to a non-electronic means of communication. To egg-nen such circumstances it is not in dispute.
IV. After the revision of the defendant is the cost implications of § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO zurückzuweisen.