Timeshare contracts are expressly protected as consumer contracts under Article 6(4)(c) Rome I. With the extended notion of timeshare in Directive 2008/122/EC, the question is whether timeshare-related contracts should be protected as consumer contracts. Additionally, unlike Article 6(4)(c) Rome I, Article 17 Brussels Ia does not explicitly include timeshare contracts into its material scope nor mention the concept of timeshare. It gives rise to the question whether, and if yes, how, timeshare contracts should be protected as consumer contracts under Brussels Ia. This article argues that both timeshare contracts and timeshare-related contracts should be protected as consumer contracts under EU private international law. To this end, Brussels Ia should establish a new provision, Article 17(4), which expressly includes timeshare contracts in its material scope, by referring to the timeshare notion in Directive 2008/122/EC in the same way as in Article 6(4)(c) Rome I.

根据罗马 I 第 6(4)(c) 条，分时度假合同作为消费者合同受到明确保护。随着指令 2008/122/EC 中分时度假概念的扩展，问题是与分时度假相关的合同是否应作为消费者合同受到保护。此外，与罗马 I 的第 6(4)(c) 条不同，布鲁塞尔 Ia 的第 17 条并未明确将分时度假合同纳入其实质范围，也未提及分时度假的概念。这引发了一个问题，如果是的话，分时度假合同是否应该作为消费者合同受到布鲁塞尔 Ia 的保护。本文认为，分时度假合同和分时度假相关合同都应作为消费者合同受到欧盟国际私法的保护。为此，布鲁塞尔 Ia 应制定一项新条款，第 17 条第 4 款，