Jurisprudence

  • Informations concernant l’affaire
    • ID national: Cour de Cassation, chambre criminelle, N° 07-83.449
    • État membre: France
    • Nom commun:N/A
    • Type de décision: Décision de la Cour suprême
    • Date de la décision: 18/03/2008
    • Juridiction: Cour de Cassation, chambre criminelle
    • Objet:
    • Demandeur: Société Brestoise de lunetterie and others
    • Défendeur: Caroptic
    • Mots clés: advertisement, evidence, misleading commercial practices, proof of negligence
  • Articles de la directive
    Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, link
  • Note introductive
    In the absence of an administrative investigation, the provisions of article L. 121-2  of the Consumer Code allowing investigators to demand to be provided with any elements in order to prove alleged violations does not exempt the plaintiff from bringing evidence of the violation.

    The obligation for the advertiser to provide evidence regarding the price shall not apply when the demand is made by the administrative investigators.
  • Faits
    The defendant had announced a discounted price in leaflets. The defendant did not prove reality of the discount with reference to the normal price. The plaintiff did not provide any details about the duration of the offer and its scope.

    The court dismissed the claim since the burden of proof with regards to the constitutive elements of the offense still remains on the plaintiff.
  • Question juridique
    Who is bearing the burden of proof in a claim for misleading commercial practices in the case there has not been an administrative investigation and the defendant has been directly summoned.
  • Décision
  • Affaires liées

    Aucun résultat disponible

  • Doctrine

    Aucun résultat disponible

  • Résultat
    The plaintiff's claim has been dismissed.