Европейски портал за електронно правосъдие

Данни за случая
- Национален идентификатор: Supreme Administrative Court, Judgment 6562/18, VII d.
- Държава-членка: България
- Общоприето наименование:N/A
- Вид решение: Решение на върховния съд
- Дата на решението: 17/05/2018
- Съд: Supreme Administrative Court
- Заглавие:
- Ищец:
- Ответник:
- Ключови думи: material information, misleading omissions, misleading commercial practices

Показване на всички|Скриване на всички

Членове от директивата

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 2.
Уводна бележка

Being informed that the baggage fee for checked baggage should be paid separately from the flight ticket (at the airline’s ticket offices at Sofia Airport) is essential for the decision of the average consumer. It is not insignificant for the consumer whether he/she pays the fee at the same time as the flight ticket is purchased or has to pay for it at the airport once ready to depart.

The fact that a company provides additional information via phone regarding the payment of checked baggage is entirely irrelevant to the presence of unfair commercial practices, because this information is provided after the purchase of a ticket, i.e. when the choice of the consumer is already made and influenced by the way the trader’s offer is presented.
Факти

The plaintiff is a licensed tour operator and administrator of an online reservation system for airline tickets.

The administrative proceeding against the plaintiff has begun with a complaint from a consumer who bought a plane ticket. The complaint states that the consumer has made an airline ticket reservation through the website by choosing an additional fee of 50€ per suitcase. This fee was included in the final price of the ticket. Hours after the amount was withdrawn from his card, the consumer received a call saying that the baggage fee was not paid, and he would have to pay that fee upon arrival at the airport.

The Consumer Protection Commission issued an order establishing that the plaintiff used unfair commercial practice because essential product information was withheld from consumers which were, in this way, misled while taking a transactional decision. The plaintiff appealed this order before Sofia Administrative Court but the court rejected the appeal as ungrounded. As a final resort, the plaintiff appealed the First Instance Court’s judgement before the Supreme Administrative Court.
Правен въпрос

The Consumer Protection Commission issued an order establishing that the plaintiff used unfair commercial practice because essential product information was withheld from consumers which were, in this way, misled while taking a transactional decision.
Решение

The Supreme Administrative Court held that:

The plaintiff uses a misleading commercial practice because if a consumer wishes to book an airplane ticket through the website and chooses the check-in baggage option, he does not receive information that the baggage fee must be paid at the airport and can’t be paid alongside the airplane ticket on the website. Furthermore, it is not stated on the website that the check-in baggage option serves only as information on the cost of the service. It is also not stated if the price on the website is the same as the price that the consumer will have to pay at the airport.

The Court finds that, in order to determine whether there is a misleading commercial practice, it should be noted that this is a purchase of an airline ticket on a website where the consumer is unable to make any changes.

The fact that the checked baggage should be paid for separately from the airplane ticket (at the airline ticket offices of Sofia Airport), is essential for the decision of the average consumer. It was found that before an early flight the airline’s ticket office was outside working hours, which resulted in a higher fee for the check-in baggage of the consumer.

The fact that a company provides additional information via phone on the payment of check-in baggage is entirely irrelevant to the presence of unfair commercial practices, because this information is provided after the purchase of a ticket, i.e. when the choice of the consumer is already made and influenced by the way the trader’s offer is presented.

It is not controversial that the plaintiff provides this service as provided by the air carrier.

The specific composition of unfair commercial practice, consisting of misleading inactivity within the meaning of article 5(4) in conjunction with article 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC requires the trader to provide all necessary information. Therefore, if the airline provides the check-in baggage service separately from the price of the air ticket (at the airport), it should be clearly indicated when the ticket is purchased on the website of the tour operator. Having failed to provide the necessary information before the purchase of the airline ticket, the plaintiff has constituted the composition of an unfair misleading commercial practice within the meaning of article 68e(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.

URL: http://www.sac.government.bg/court22.nsf/d038edcf49190344c2256b7600367606/f4fcd58605f2276ec225828f0029a31c?OpenDocument

Пълен текст: Пълен текст
Свързани случаи

Няма налични резултати
Правна литература

Няма налични резултати
Резултат

The Court upheld the First Instance Court’s judgment that rejected the plaintiff’s appeal.

Съдебна практика

Пълен текст