Europejski portal e-sprawiedliwość - Case Law
Zamknij

PORTAL JEST JUŻ DOSTĘPNY W WERSJI BETA!

Odwiedź europejski portal „e-Sprawiedliwość” w wersji beta i powiedz nam, co o nim myślisz!

 
 

Ścieżka nawigacji


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID Decision nr 8/2010
Państwo członkowskie Polska
Common Name link
Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Decision date 29/07/2010
Sąd Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów w Warszawie
Temat
Powód/powódka The President of Competition and Consumer Protection
Pozwany/Pozwana Bank BPH S.A. (Cracow)
Słowa kluczowe average consumer, economic behaviour, financial services, material distortion, misleading commercial practices, transactional decision

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 2. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1.

It is a misleading omission to advertise a fixed-term savings deposit without mentioning that the interest rate is actually variable. 
The object of the proceedings was the promotional campaign of defendant (a bank), encouraging actual and potential clients of the bank to take advantage of the offer "Przyjaźń procentuje" ("Friendship pays off") for fixed-term savings deposits.

From 17 November to 19 December 2009, the defendant published materials in the form of brochures, labelled "Recommendation Certificates".

The President of the Office of the Competition and Consumer started proceedings, as the trader was misleading the consumer, because the brochures did not state that the terms of the offer (including the interest rate for the deposits) were subject to modification.
Is it unfair to promote a fixed-term savings deposit, without indicating that the interest rate is actually subject to change? 
The President of the Office of the Competition and Consumer Protection considered that the brochures created the impression that the interest rates were invariable, while this was in fact not the case. In the opinion of the President, the brochure distorts (or is likely to distort) the economic behaviour of the average consumer.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available

The practice of the defendant was found to be unfair. 

The President of the Office ordered to publish the administrative decision, not only on the defendant's website, but also in the first five pages of a nationwide journal.