Eiropas e-tiesiskuma portāls - Judikatūra
Aizvērt

IR PIEEJAMA PORTĀLA BETA VERSIJA!

Apmeklējiet Eiropas e-tiesiskuma portāla BETA versiju un sniedziet atsauksmes par savu pieredzi!

 
 

Navigācijas ceļš


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Lietas apraksts

Lietas apraksts
Nacionālais identifikators Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision Nr. E03-KREUD-30
Dalībvalsts Latvija
Vispārpieņemtais nosaukums HuaShen
Lēmuma veids Administratīvs lēmums, pirmā instance
Lēmuma datums 27/05/2010
Tiesa Patērētāju Tiesību Aizsardzības Centrs (Rīga)
Temats
Prasītājs
Atbildētājs
Atslēgvārdi evidence, misleading advertising, product characteristics

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (b) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (d) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 1, Article 3, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 4., (a) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 4, Article 13 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, 17.

Promoting a medical tool by claiming that it can cure specific diseases, constitutes an unfair commercial practice when no relevant scientific proof can be provided to support this claim.
The trader was advertising certain products on its webpage, claiming that they had characteristics that would cure certain diseases, illnesses or malfunctions. The Consumer Rights Protection Centre (CRPC) requested information justifying such claims, which the trader could not provide.

The trader voluntarily removed the claims, but indicated that it had only provided information that the manufacturer of the product had given.
Does the claim of specific health effects for a medical tool need to be supported by relevant scientific proof in order to not qualify as a misleading commercial practice?
The CRPC found that the trader had engaged in an unfair commercial practice (prohibited by  Annex I-17 of the UCP Directive), because it claimed that a product is able to cure illnesses, but could not provide any evidence that proved the product possessed such characteristics.

The CRPC did not review the argument that the trader only conveyed the information that the manufacturer had supplied about its product.
Pilns teksts: Pilns teksts

Nav pieejami nekādi rezultāti

Nav pieejami nekādi rezultāti

The trader was penalised for having committed an unfair commercial practice.