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 861/2002
Member State Bulgaria
Common Name “Kari” v. Commission on Consumer Protection
Decision type Other
Decision date 15/07/2002
Court Софийски градски сьд (Appellate court, Sofia)
Subject
Plaintiff
Defendant
Keywords

Package Travel Directive, Article 4, 5.

When issuing an administrative order imposing penalty for violation of Art. 35 Law on Tourism the administrative organ has to ascertain the identity of the perpetrator to a sufficient extent so that the latter can be individualized and traced. If the perpetrator is a company its tax and registration numbers are sufficient means of identification. The fact that the name of the company is not correctly and completely recorded in the administrative order by the penalizing organ does not make the order invalid on procedural grounds.
The case is an appeal by cassation of a decision of the first instance court (Sofia Regional Court). In its decision the first instance court upheld a challenged penalty order issued by the Commission on Trade and Consumer Protection (now Commission on Consumer Protection) for violation of Art. 35 Law on Tourism. The penalty order was issued on the basis of a statement of findings drawn up by an official of the Commission on Consumer Protection designated by the head of the Commission to act on its behalf.

The Appellate Court found no violation of the rules of administrative procedure by the administrative organ issuing the order and upheld the decision of the first instance court.
The appellant had challenged the decision of the first instance court (upholding the penalty order imposed by the Commission on Consumer Protection) mainly on procedural grounds. It argued that the penalty order was issued in violation of a number of procedural requirements set out in the Law on Administrative Offences and Penalties. More specifically it was argued that the statement of findings on the offence was incomplete and that the perpetrator was not properly identified.

The Appellate Court held that the penalty order was issued in compliance with the procedural requirements. In particular it was issued by the competent organ and contained the necessary information on the competent authority and on the official designated by the head of the Commission on Consumer Protection and authorised to draw up the statement of findings and to act on behalf of the Commission.

The Court further held that the perpetrator was sufficiently individualized by its tax and registration numbers and that omissions and mistakes in the statement of findings in respect of the name of the company could not corrupt the validity of the order.

[Abstract drafted by Antonina Bakardjieva-Engelbrekt]
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available