Európsky portál elektronickej justície - Case Law
Zavrieť

BETA VERZIA PORTÁLU JE UŽ DOSTUPNÁ!

Navštívte BETA verziu Európskeho portálu elektronickej justície a napíšte nám, čo si o nej myslíte.

 
 

Navigačný riadok


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID 5Sžo/21/2014
Členský štát Slovensko
Common Name link
Decision type Supreme court decision
Decision date 27/01/2015
Súd Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky
Predmet
Žalobca Unknown
Žalovaný Ústredný inšpektorát Slovenskej obchodnej inšpekcie
Kľúčové slová advertisement, advertising, consumer, consumer rights, goods

Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 2, (a) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 5, 1. Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 5, 6.

(1) The Act No. 147/2001 Coll. on advertising, as amended, does not allow to advertise the products, the sale of which is prohibited by other laws.
(2) The sale of electronic cigarettes delivered via email is considered a violation of the provisions of Act No. 377/2004 Coll. on protection of non - smokers, as amended.
(3) When selling electronic cigarettes, it is not decisive whether such product is sold with or without the nicotine liquid.
The plaintiff requested the court to dismiss the judgment of the regional court that confirmed the decision of the Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection with the seat in Žilina for the Žilina region.

The Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection with the seat in Žilina for the Žilina region imposed a fine in the amount of EUR 340 on the plaintiff. The plaintiff infringed general advertising requirements, as it was selling products - electronic cigarettes delivered via mail on its website www.zdravšia-cigareta.sk, which is prohibited by Act on protection of non-smokers.

The regional court agreed with the findings of the Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection. More specifically, the regional court has dealt with the plaintiff´s arguments. These arguments were evaluated by the court as unjustified. The regional court decided that harmful conduct of the plaintiff identified by the administrative authority was duly demonstrated, and that the plaintiff is objectively responsible for breach.

The plaintiff appealed the judgment of the regional court and claimed that this judgment had defects, which caused the judgment to be erroneous.
(1) Is it allowed under Act No. 147/2001 Coll. on advertising, as amended, to advertise the products, the sale of which is prohibited by other laws?
(2) Is the sale of electronic cigarettes and their delivery via mail considered as violation of the provisions of Act No. 377/2004 Coll. on protection of non - smokers, as amended?
(3) When selling electronic cigarettes, is it important whether such product is sold with or without the nicotine liquid?
The court stated that it did not find any defect in the proceeding of the administrative authority, which could affect the legitimacy of the contested decision of this administrative authority. The court considered the plaintiff´s objections as unfounded and confirmed the judgment of the regional court.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available

The court confirmed the judgment of the regional court and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.