• Lietas apraksts
    • Nacionālais identifikators: Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision Nr.E03-KREUD-23
    • Dalībvalsts: Latvija
    • Vispārpieņemtais nosaukums:N/A
    • Lēmuma veids: Administratīvs lēmums, pirmā instance
    • Lēmuma datums: 15/04/2010
    • Tiesa: Pateretaju Tiesibu Aizsardzibas Centrs (Riga)
    • Temats:
    • Prasītājs:
    • Atbildētājs:
    • Atslēgvārdi: black list, illegal products, misleading commercial practices, misleading statements, misrepresentation
  • Direktīvas panti
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 4., (a) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 4, Article 13 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, 9.
  • Ievadpiezīme
    Annex I-9 of the UCP Directive is violated when a trader advertises for employment services for which it is not licensed.
  • Fakti
    The trader was placing advertisements with certain job offers in the media. The Consumer Rights Protection Centre found that the trader did not hold the necessary license for job placement services.  

    The trader admitted that it did not hold the license, but claimed that:

    (1) the respective potential employers had authorized the trader to conclude the employment agreements on their behalf; and

    (2) after the license was lost, no new employment agreements were concluded with potential employees, and all existing customers had been informed that the service was discontinued.
  • Juridisks jautājums
    (1) Can a trader promote a service which requires a special license when the trader does not hold such license?

    (2) Is it relevant that no actual clients were attracted and that no contracts were concluded, when considering the violation at stake?
  • Lēmums

    (1) The trader had not submitted any evidence that the potential employers had authorised the trader to conclude employment agreements on their behalf. The Consumer Rights Protection Centre concluded that the promotion of a service which the trader is not legally entitled to provide, constitutes a misleading commercial practice and breaches Annex I-9 of the UCP Directive. 

    (2) The Consumer Rights Protection Centre did not review the argument that no harm was done to consumers as no customers were attracted, no employment contracts were concluded and all those who had expressed an interest had been notified about the termination of the service. There was no evidence provided by the trader that confirmed the accuracy of this statement.

    URL: http://www.ptac.gov.lv/upload/ptac_lemumi/2010/r_e_expert_izraksts_15.04.2010.pdf

    Pilns teksts: Pilns teksts

  • Saistītās lietas

    Nav pieejami nekādi rezultāti

  • Juridiskā literatūra

    Nav pieejami nekādi rezultāti

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