Case law

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 1.

(1) The improper use of a language does not constitute, ipso facto, a misleading commercial practice.

(2) The joint indication of different applicable charges related to a product, does not constitute a misleading practice, when the average consumer must be assumed to be aware of such diversion of charges.

The plaintiff, an exchange office, made use of two separate bill posters indicating the exchange rate for two different types of transactions, i.e. one for foreign currency exchanges and one for travelers cheques (which is an alternative to exchange money abroad by simply presenting a cheque).

The exchange rates for both types of transactions were presented to the consumer jointly by indicating next to the notion "we buy" (to which the exchange for travelers cheques corresponded) the notion "we sell" (to which the exchange rate for foreign currency corresponded).

Moreover, the reference to the exchange rate for travelers cheques was "EURO travelers cheques" instead of "travelers cheques in EURO", this being an improper use of language.

(1) According to the court, the improper use of a language does not in itself constitute a misleading practice taking into account the level of knowledge of the average consumer. Furthermore, the court held that the use of specific wording is not a requirement set forth in any applicable legal provisions. Hence, no misleading commercial practice could be established in this respect.

(2) Next, it was established by the court that the indication of the two applicable exchange rates, depending on the type of transaction, was made properly and in compliance with special legislation. As a result, neither this commercial practice was held to constitute an unfair commercial practice.

The court further stated that the average consumer must be assumed to be well aware of the various types of transactions taking place in exchange offices.

(1) Does the improper use of a language constitute, ipso facto, a misleading commercial practice?

(2) Does the indication of different applicable chares related to a product, constitute a misleading practice, when such charges are depicted jointly?

URL: http://portal.just.ro/JurisprudentaVizualizare.aspx?id_speta=19089&idInstitutie=306

Full text: Full text

No results available

No results available

The court decided the plaintiff did not engage in unfair commercial practices towards the consumer. The plaintiff's request of annulment of the sanction applied was granted.