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 RŁO 9/2010
Państwo członkowskie Polska
Common Name link
Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Decision date 19/04/2010
Sąd Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji I Konsumentów w Warszawie
Temat
Powód/powódka The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection
Pozwany/Pozwana Grzegorz Daszkowski trading under the name of ETNA, seated in Lodz
Słowa kluczowe misleading omissions, misleading price, price information

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)

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.
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.
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?  
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.

 
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available

The practice of the trader was found to be unfair.