• Detalles del asunto
    • ID nacional: Supreme Court, Judgment 1097/2009
    • Estado miembro: España
    • Denominación común:STS 1097/2009
    • Tipo de resolución: Resolución del Tribunal Supremo
    • Fecha de la resolución: 17/11/2009
    • Órgano jurisdiccional: Supreme Court
    • Asunto:
    • Demandante:
    • Demandado:
    • Palabras clave: Misleading advertising, factual error, omission incongruity, fraud offense.
  • Artículos de la Directiva
    Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 2 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 2, (b)
  • Nota preliminar

    Misleading advertising. Justification of its legal classification. Community legislation. Evaluation of the terms of the offer. The omission of relevant elements can also be misleading. The offer, although not very clear, is not deceiving.

  • Hechos

    Private Higher Studies Center offering a course on osteopathy, informing in the brochures that it will be validated by the official British Agency and that the course would be held for, that purpose, in Madrid. However, the course location was changed and to be held in London, resulting in an extra cost that amounted to 5,000 euros.

  • Cuestión jurídica

    Possibility of facing being convicted of a crime related to the market and consumers for false advertising and, consequently, before a civil liability.

  • Decisión

    The decision is based on the opinion that the offer was not intentionally misleading because the defendant initially had the reasonable expectation that the course would take place in Madrid. The judges affirmed that it was the British agency who, after 2003 and not before, decided to transfer the place of study to London, at that moment the information provided was not initially incorrect, which eliminates misleading advertising.

    URL: https://supremo.vlex.es/vid/-211687231

    Texto completo: Texto completo

  • Asuntos relacionados

    No hay resultados disponibles

  • Literatura jurídica

    No hay resultados disponibles

  • Resultado

    The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, condemning the defendant for an offence relating to the market and consumers for false advertising.