Kohtupraktika

  • Juhtumi üksikasjad
    • Isikutunnistus: 3-3-1-15-05
    • Liikmesriik: Eesti
    • Lühinimetus:link
    • Otsuse liik: Ülemkohtu otsus
    • Otsuse kuupäev: 04/05/2005
    • Kohus: Riigikohus
    • Teema:
    • Hageja: Radiolinja Eesti AS
    • Kostja: Estonian Consumer Protection Board
    • Võtmesõnad: price indication, price information
  • Direktiivi artiklid
    Price Indication Directive, Article 2, (a) Price Indication Directive, Article 4, 1.
  • Põhimärkus
    The trader cannot impose extra charges for payments in cash as the selling price must indicate the final price.
  • Faktid
    The defendant issued a precept pursuant to which the plaintiff cannot charge consumers extra for payments in cash. The plaintiff contested the precept before the administrative court. The plaintiff argued that the consumers and the public had been notified of the service fee for payment in cash and that consumers had the opportunity to choose the payment method and did not have to make payments is cash. The court of first instance did not satisfy the complaint. The court of second instance found in favour of the plaintiff and ruled that provision of the possibility to make payments in cash is not compulsory.
  • Õigusküsimus
    Can traders impose extra charges for payments for services made in cash ?
  • Otsus

    The Supreme Court found that imposing charges for payments for services made in cash are not in compliance with the principles set out in the national law provisions pursuant to which when offering or selling goods, a trader shall indicate the selling price and the the selling price means the final price of the product. The indication of the selling price must be unambiguous to the consumer. Following from that, the Supreme Court found that all costs, including costs for the payment method, must be included in the indicated selling price.

    URL: N/A

    Täistekst: Täistekst

  • Seotud juhtumid

    Tulemused puuduvad

  • Õiguskirjandus

    Tulemused puuduvad

  • Tulemus
    The court of first instance did not satisfy the complaint. The court of second instance found in favour of the plaintiff, i.e imposing extra charges is allowed. The appeal in cassation of the defendant was satisfied. The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the court of second instance and left the decision of the court of first instance in force with the additional reasoning by the Supreme Court.