Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: 2S-22
    • Member State: Lithuania
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Administrative decision, first degree
    • Decision date: 22/10/2009
    • Court: Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania (Vilnius)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant: UAB “Teisingumas”
    • Keywords: black list, economic behaviour, endorsement, material distortion, misleading advertising, misleading commercial practices, regulated profession
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (d) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, 4.
  • Headnote
    Advertising services for which a license is required, whereas in reality the trader is not authorised under applicable law to provide such services, constitutes a false claim that a trader has been approved/authorised.
  • Facts
    In the course of providing legal services, the defendant advertised its services offered using wording such as “Justice – attorney (…) services “.

    The defendant was not authorised to provide attorney services under applicable law.
  • Legal issue
    The Council referred to the prohibition to falsely claim that a trader (including his commercial practices) has been licensed (authorised).

    The Council drew attention to the fact that the defendant was not authorized under applicable law to provide attorney services, neither did he have any agreements with law firms, authorised to provide the services involved.
  • Decision

    Does the advertising of services for which a license is required, whereas in reality the trader is not authorised under applicable laws to provide such services, constitute a false claim that a trader has been approved/authorised?

    URL: http://www.konkuren.lt/index.php?show=nut_view&nut_id=1081

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    A number of the defendant’s advertising statements were concluded to be an unfair commercial practice and a misleading advertising. A fine of LTL 2,800 (approx. EUR 800) was imposed on the defendant.