Съдебна практика

  • Данни за случая
    • Национален идентификатор: Supreme Court of Cassation, Judgement 60047/2021
    • Държава-членка: България
    • Общоприето наименование:N/A
    • Вид решение: Съдебно решение в процес на обжалване
    • Дата на решението: 24/06/2021
    • Съд: Върховен касационен съд
    • Заглавие:
    • Ищец:
    • Ответник:
    • Ключови думи: injunction, burden of proof
  • Членове от директивата
    Injunctions Directive, Article 2
  • Уводна бележка

    The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, which confirms the decision of the Commission for Protection of Competition and establishes a violation of the Law on Protection of Competition binds the civil court only on the fact of violation and the legal qualification given by the CPC. In accordance with the general rules of court proceedings, the establishment of the damage, the causal link between the violation and the damage and the amount of the damage are subject to proof in civil proceedings.

  • Факти

    The Consumer Legal Aid Association has filed a claim with legal grounds art. 188 of the Consumer Protection Act against Praktiker Ltd. for the amount of BGN 30,000 and interest, representing compensation for non-pecuniary damages caused to the collective interests of consumers as a result of misleading advertising, expressed in an advertising message distributed for the period 12.11.2013 - 17.11.2013 for promotion "22% discount for all only from November 14 to 17. ” This advertising campaign was considered misleading by the CPC, as it was found that it does not cover absolutely all goods in the site. In particular, cigarettes, books and goods that are in other types of promotions, some of which are below - 20%, are not covered, but this is not explicitly stated by the trader. The CPC imposed a property sanction in the amount of BGN 83,655, which was confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court.

  • Правен въпрос

    In order to establish what circumstances the plaintiff in a collective action bears the burden of proof in case he/she claims compensation for the collective interests of the consumers, arising from a violation established by an effective decision of the Supreme Administrative Court?

  • Решение

    The Supreme Court of Cassation acknowledges that in the proceedings on the collective claim and the claimed compensation, the plaintiff did not engage any evidence other than the file on the CPC decision confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court, which imposed an administrative sanction on the trader. In particular, the applicant has not adduced evidence of the non-pecuniary damage claimed, its causal link with the alleged unlawful conduct and the amount of the damage. The Supreme Court considers that the burden of proof for these circumstances rests entirely with the plaintiff. The entered-into-force decision of the Supreme Administrative Court is binding on the civil court only on the fact of the violation and its legal qualification, but not on the other elements of the factual composition of the civil tort, which must be proved in the collective action by the plaintiff.

    URL: http://www.vks.bg/pregled-akt?type=ot-spisak&id=1CD99136E58C018DC22586FE003F897D

    Пълен текст: Пълен текст

  • Свързани случаи

    Няма налични резултати

  • Правна литература

    Няма налични резултати

  • Резултат

    The Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the decisions of the Sofia City Court and the Sofia Court of Appeal, which rejected the collective claim of the Consumer Legal Aid Association.