The plaintiff introduced specific requirements for termination of service agreements. In order to terminate a service, consumers had to file a personal request on a given day of the month and only after having already settled all their unsettled payments with the plaintiff.
The defendant, a consumer authority, investigated these requirements and found that they constituted an aggressive commercial practice. The defendant banned the plaintiff from further pursuing the aggressive practice (i.e. the requirements concerned). The defendant ordered preliminary enforcement of this ban in order to ensure a proper safeguard of consumers' interests. As a result, the ban became effective prior to defendant's decision actually entered into force.
To suspend the preliminary enforcement, the plaintiff appealed against the preliminary measure. The plaintiff mainly argued that the admission of preliminary enforcement was disproportionate, because it harmed defendant's economic interests and, as a result, breached the principle of proportionality under the domestic administrative procedural rules.