The court explained that an unfair commercial practice usually is either misleading or aggressive. In relation aggressive practices, the Law on Prohibition of Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices transposed from the Directive 2005/29/EC a list of practices, which are presumed to be aggressive.
Under Article 29 of Annex I of the Directive 2005/29/EC (implemented into Lithuanian law by Article 8(3)(6) of the Law on Prohibition of Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices), the actions of the trader are presumed to be aggressive, if they manifest as demanding immediate payment for the products, supplied by the trader, but not solicited by the consumer.
In this case, despite the termination of the wired radio services agreements, the plaintiff continued to provide wired radio services and issued numerous invoices demanding immediate payment. This means that the actions of the plaintiff correspond to one of the practices, which are presumed to be aggressive. The plaintiff did not provide any evidence rebutting such a presumption, thus the court confirmed that the plaintiff was engaged in aggressive commercial practices.