Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Administrative Court of Sofia city (Sofia), 7 May 2009
    • Member State: Bulgaria
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Administrative decision in appeal
    • Decision date: 07/05/2009
    • Court: Administrative Court of Sofia city (Sofia)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Cosmo Mobile Bulgaria EAD
    • Defendant: The Consumer Protection Commission
    • Keywords: advertisement, identity of the trader, misleading commercial practices, misleading omissions, mobile phone services, trader
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 2. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 1.
  • Headnote
    Omitting the name of the trader in advertisements does not constitute an unfair commercial practice. It is almost impossible to explicitly refer to the trader in each advertisement.
  • Facts
    Cosmo Mobile Bulgaria had distributed advertising materials in which the information regarding the dealer of the prepaid mobile services had been omitted.

    The Chairman of the Consumer Protection Commission issued a penal provision against Cosmo Mobile Bulgaria and imposed a sanction of 500 leva (approximately 250 EUR).

    Cosmo Mobile Bulgaria appealed the decision before the Regional Court of Sofia city, but the latter confirmed the decision. Cosmo Mobile Bulgaria appealed against this decision. 
  • Legal issue
    The court ruled that the omission of the information regarding the trader does not impact the transactional decision of the consumer, as the key elements in the advertisement (the offered service and the price) were indicated.

    The administrative authority is obliged to motivate why the omitted information is considered essential and necessary for the average consumer to take a transactional decision. According to the court, the mere fact that information relating to the trader is omitted, is insufficient to prove the existence of a misleading commercial practice.

    Omission of a trader's name in an advertisement does not constitute an unfair commercial practice. It is inconceivable that a trader should be explicitly referred to in each advertisement.
  • Decision

    Is it a misleading commercial practice to omit information regarding the dealer of prepaid telecom services? 

    URL: http://domino.admincourtsofia.bg/BCAP/ADMC/WebData.nsf/ActsByCaseNo/F64AFDED108CBE53C225768D0038E5DC/$FILE/09R1349.pdf

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The decision of the Consumer Protection Commission,  as well as the judgement of the Regional Court of Sofia city, were dismissed.a