Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 3, Article 8

(1) A provision in the terms and conditions of a seller stating that "the purchaser confirms by sending the order to the seller that the seller has complied with the information obligation pursuant to § 3 (1) of Act No. 102/2014 Coll. on the protection of consumers in sale of goods or provision of services under distance contracts or contracts executed outside the business premises of the seller, as amended" is not in compliance with Section 3 (1) of Act No. 102/2014 Coll. on the protection of consumers in sale of goods or provision of services under distance contracts or contracts executed outside the business premises of the seller, as amended, (implemented from Article 6 (1) of the Directive 2011/83/EU), as such clause transfers the burden of proof with respect to the obligation of informing the consumer on the consumer instead of the seller.

Based on the decision of the first instance administrative body, the defendant was imposed with a fine amounting to EUR 3,000 as multiple breaches of the respective applicable law, in particular Section 3 (1), Section 4 (2) (a), Section 4 (2) (b) and Section 4 (2)(c) of Act No. 250/2007 Coll. on consumer protection, as amended, had been discovered by means of investigation carried out in the defendant's e-shop by the inspectors. All of the mentioned breaches were considered as unfair terms in consumer contracts as they created an unbalance in rights and obligations of the contractual parties and, moreover, they imposed obligations without any legal grounds on the consumers.

The e-shop of the defendant, for instance, included in its terms and conditions a statement that "the purchaser confirms by sending the order to the seller that the seller has complied with the information obligation pursuant to § 3 (1) of Act No. 102/2014 Coll. on the protection of consumers in sale of goods or provision of services under distance contracts or contracts executed outside the business premises of the seller, as amended, (implemented from Article 6 (1) of the Directive 2011/83/EU). The first instance administrative body declared such condition to be contrary to Section 3 (1) of Act No. 102/2014 Coll. on the protection of consumers in sale of goods or provision of services under distance contracts or contracts executed outside the business premises of the seller, as amended.

(1) Is a provision in the terms and conditions of a seller stating that "the purchaser confirms by sending the order to the seller that the seller has complied with the information obligation pursuant to § 3 (1) of Act No. 102/2014 Coll. on the protection of consumers in sale of goods or provision of services under distance contracts or contracts executed outside the business premises of the seller, as amended", in compliance with the information obligation of the seller pursuant to § 3 (1) of Act No. 102/2014 Coll. on the protection of consumers in sale of goods or provision of services under distance contracts or contracts executed outside the business premises of the seller, as amended, (implemented from Article 6 (1) of the Directive 2011/83/EU)?

The Central Inspectorate rejected the appeal of the defendant and decided that the sanctions imposed by the first instance body are fully in line with the common decision practice.

The Central Inspectorate decided that transfering the burden of proof with respect to the obligation of informing the consumer on the consumer instead of the seller is not in compliance with Act No. 102/2014 Coll. on the protection of consumers in sale of goods or provision of services under distance contracts or contracts executed outside the business premises of the seller, as amended.

The Central Inspectorate concluded that the imposed fine is appropriate considering the character of the breach and confirmed the decision of the first instance administrative body to the entire extent.

Celé znenie: Celé znenie

Nie sú k dispozícii žiadne výsledky

Nie sú k dispozícii žiadne výsledky

The decision of the first instance administrative body on imposing a fine amounting to 3,000 EUR was confirmed by the Central Inspectorate.