European e-Justice Portal - Case Law
Close

BETA VERSION OF THE PORTAL IS NOW AVAILABLE!

Visit the BETA version of the European e-Justice Portal and give us feedback of your experience!

 
 

Navigation path


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID M 1/02
Member State Denmark
Common Name The Consumer Ombudsman versus Interessebank Danmark
Decision type Other
Decision date 01/05/2003
Court Sø- og Handelsretten (Others, Copenhagen)
Subject
Plaintiff
Defendant
Keywords

Distance Selling Directive, Article 10, 1. Distance Selling Directive, Article 10, 2.

1. The case concerned the prohibition according to the Marketing Practices Act § 6a, subsection 1, (implementing, inter alia, art. 10 of the Distance Selling Directive 97/7/EEC), according to which unsolicited applications to consumers by means of fax or e-mail are prohibited. A company sent out not less than 156 unsolicited fax and e-mails to consumers or businesses. The company was imposed a fine of DKK 15.000.
The Consumer Ombudsman on behalf of the prosecution brought the case before the court. The Ombudsman claimed that the company should be imposed a fine for sending out not less than 156 unsolicited fax messages and e-mails to consumers and businesses, thereby violating § 6a, subsection 1 of the Marketing Practices Act. According to this provision it is prohibited to send out commercial applications by means of automatic calling systems, fax and e-mail without the recipient’s previous and express consent.
The Maritime and Commercial Court of Copenhagen decided the case in favour of the Consumer Ombudsman.
The court found that the prohibition set forth in § 6a, subsection 1 of the Marketing Practices Act was violated
The court underlined that implied consent does not comply with the conditions set forth in § 6a, subsection 1
In determining the fine the court attached importance to the amount of unsolicited applications, the inconvenience for the recipients and the fact that the company continued the violation even after being advised by the authorities that that the conduct was illegal.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available