Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Decision nr RŁO 9/2010
    • Member State: Poland
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Administrative decision, first degree
    • Decision date: 19/04/2010
    • Court: The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection in Warsaw
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection
    • Defendant: Grzegorz Daszkowski trading under the name of ETNA, seated in Lodz
    • Keywords: misleading omissions, misleading price, price information
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 4., (c)
  • Headnote
    Failing to determine the amount of the applicable VAT in the price of services, is a misleading omission that can influence the transactional decision of the consumer.
  • Facts
    The object of the proceedings were the contractual standards of a claim for damages agreement, and a power of attorney used by the trader when concluding agreements with consumers with the intention to claim for damages in the name of consumers.

    The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection started proceedings in order to determine whether the contractual standards were misleading, as they contained provisions determining the amount of remuneration of the trader, by stating only the net value of the amount due, without determining the rate of the tax on goods and services (VAT) required to be paid.
  • Legal issue
    The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection considered that the omission to determine the amount of tax on goods and services (VAT) is unlawful, and infringes consumer interests.

    The President also considered that the manner to determine the price of services offered by the trader in the contractual standards does not meet the requirements of the art. 6 sec. 4 pt. 3 of the Polish Prevention of Unfair Commercial Practices Act.

    The President also considered that the consumer is misled by the fact that the contractual provisions do not explicitly state the amount of remuneration including tax on goods and services (VAT). Consumers who are presented with agreements that only state the net value of the remuneration without the amount of the tax on goods and services (VAT), may consider the price to be exceptionally beneficial for them. As a result, such commercial practice deceives (or is likely to deceive) the average consumer, and cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise.

     
  • Decision

    Does an omission to determine the amount of the tax on goods and services (VAT) in the price for the services offered by the trader constitute a misleading commercial practice?  

    URL: http://decyzje.uokik.gov.pl/dec_prez.nsf/0/1A1C089F2F0E3215C125772700525BFB/$file/R%C5%81O_9_2010.pdf

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The practice of the trader was found to be unfair.