European e-Justice Portal - Case law
Close

BETA VERSION OF THE PORTAL IS NOW AVAILABLE!

Visit the BETA version of the European e-Justice Portal and give us feedback of your experience!

 
 

Navigation path


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID 2S-12
Member State Lithuania
Common Name link
Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Decision date 07/05/2009
Court Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania (Vilnius)
Subject
Plaintiff
Defendant UAB “Investment house”
Keywords advertisement, black list, false impression, investments, legal rights, misleading advertising, misleading commercial practices

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (d) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, 9.

Advertising services which are subject to an official approval and where the trader does not posses such approval, constitutes an unfair commercial practice by falsely stating or otherwise creating an impression that a product can legally be sold (item 9 of Annex 1, UCP Directive). 
The defendant promoted its services by advertising investment opportunities.

However, the defendant did not posses a license to provide investment services.
The Council referred to the conclusions of the investigation by the Lithuanian Securities Commission suggesting that the services advertised by the defendant were subject to an official approval.

The Competition Council stated that by offering to invest into a stable merger and development of businesses and, thus, obtain significant income, the defendant created an impression for consumers that the services advertised and offered were legal, i.e. that the defendant was officially authorised to provide such services.

It was established that the defendant did not posses the approval to provide investment services. Therefore, the Council held, defendant’s advertisements falsely stated that the service could legally be sold, contrary to what is set forth in item 9 of Annex 1 UCP Directive.
Does advertising services which are subject to an official approval and where the trader does not posses such approval, constitute an unfair commercial practice by falsely stating or otherwise creating an impression that a product can legally be sold (item 9 of Annex 1, UCP Directive)?
Full text: Full text

No results available

No results available

A number of the defendant’s advertising statements were concluded to be an unfair commercial practice and a misleading advertising. A fine of LTL 26,400 (approx. EUR 7,543) was imposed on the defendant.