Europos e. teisingumo portalas - Case Law
Uždaryti

JAU VEIKIA PORTALO BETA VERSIJA!

Apsilankykite beta versijos Europos e. teisingumo portale ir išsakykite, ką apie jį manote!

 
 

Naršymo kelias


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID A442-90/2013
Valstybė narė Lietuva
Common Name A442-90/2013
Decision type Court decision in appeal
Decision date 17/01/2013
Teismas Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas
Tema
Ieškovas UAB „Armitana“
Atsakovas State Consumer Rights Protection Authority
Raktažodžiai discounts, information obligation, material information, misleading omissions, seasonal sales

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 2., (b) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1., (d)

Omitting to clearly indicate which products are subject to an advertised discount, constitutes an unfair commercial practice.
The plaintiff, a shoe selling company, distributed leaflets across the Internet advertising a 40% discount applicable in the web shops operated by the plaintiff, and this on the autumn/winter collection of shoes.

After conducting a research, the defendant had established that it was not possible to clearly determine whether or not the product of the plaintiff pertained to the autumn/winter collection, hence would benefit from the discount advertised.

The defendant fined the plaintiff for unfair commercial practice, and the plaintiff appealed to this decision.   
Does omitting to clearly indicate which products are subject to an advertised discount, constitute an unfair commercial practice?  
The court stated that the plaintiff, failing to provide clear and unambiguous information on the products which benefited from the advertised discount, created the impression for consumers that all of plaintiff's products (except those explicitly belonging to the "new collection") would be subject to that discount.

According to the court, the first instance court has correctly established that the circumstances of the case prove that the activity of the plaintiff does not adhere to the requirements of professional diligence and that it materially distorts or can materially distort an average consumer’s economic behavioUr in respect of the offered products.

According to the court, this allows to reasonably state that the plaintiff has committed an unfair commercial practice.  
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available

The plaintiff’s request was denied.