Giurisprudenza

  • Dettagli del caso
    • ID nazionale: Provvedimento n. 26149
    • Stato membro: Italia
    • Nome comune:N/A
    • Tipo di decisione: Decisione amministrativa di primo grado
    • Data della decisione: 04/08/2016
    • Organo giurisdizionale: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
    • Oggetto:
    • Attore: Altro Consumo and others
    • Convenuto: Agos Ducato Spa
    • Parole chiave: abusive behaviour, abusive language, aggressive commercial practices, misleading actions, price, threat
  • Articoli della direttiva
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1., (b) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1., (d) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 2, Article 8 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 2, Article 9, (b) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 2, Article 9, (d) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 2, Article 9, (e) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, 26.
  • Nota introduttiva
    (1) The offer of products at much higher rates and installments than what presented in commercial communications is a misleading commercial practice.

    (2) Hindering of customers' right to early settlement of personal loans is a practice carried out in breach of Articles 20, 24 and 25, letter d) of the Consumer Code

    (3) The concrete methods used by the trader, since characterized by the persistence and assertiveness of the reminders, were likely to appreciably distort customers' economic behavior.


  • Fatti
    Many consumers and six consumer associations reported to AGCM several conducts carried out by Agos which seemed non-compliant with the Consumer Code, such as

    (1) The first practice concerns misleading and omissive information diffused by Agos, especially through personalized letters sent to its customers, bearing confidential proposals promising new liquidity at improved financial conditions well below those originally subscribed by the consumers.

    (2) The second practice concerns Agos’s conduct aimed at hindering the early settlement of personal loans through, for example, complex procedures based on requests for documents that are not easily available for the customer, or based on the prior verification of certain conditions before providing related calculation. Further obstacles were put in place in the cases of revolving credit lines.

    (3) Agos was sending insistent payment reminders for due installments in a manner considered aggressive by AGCM because based on numerous telephone calls (phone collection), text messages (SMS) and reminder letters (telegrams), even addressed to third parties (such as guarantors, employers and family members), and causing pressure due to the close frequency.



  • Questione giuridica
    (1) Is the commercial communication according to which products are presented as having much lower rates and installments in comparison to the offer proposed once customers contacted the company a misleading commercial practice?

    (2) The fact that the company had set some "obstacles" to the early settlement of the loan, e.g. through the non-delivery of the documentation necessary to exercise the early termination right represents an infringement of the Consumer Code?

    (3) Could the insistent demands for payment of installments through telephone calls, text messages and reminder letters be considered as an aggressive commercial practice?
  • Decisione

    (1) AGCM ascertained the untruthfulness of the offers. In fact, in the vast majority of the cases, once customers contacted Agos they were offered much higher rates and installments than what presented. Moreover, in 75% of the cases, customers experienced worse financial terms and rates, increased by average of more than 20%. Thus, such conduct turned out to be able to mislead the consumers in relation to the actual economic conditions of the offers made by Agos.

    (2) The second conduct was considered as an aggressive commercial practice pursuant to Articles 24 and 25 of the Consumer Code.

    (3) The practice at issue was deemed incorrect and aggressive as contrary to professional diligence and likely to distort appreciably the economic behavior of the consumers concerned.

    URL: http://www.agcm.it/component/joomdoc/allegati-news/PS3330_chiusura.pdf/download.html

    Testo integrale: Testo integrale

  • Casi correlati

    Nessun risultato disponibile

  • Dottrina

    Nessun risultato disponibile

  • Risultato
    The plaintiff's request was granted