European e-Justice Portal - Case law


Visit the BETA version of the European e-Justice Portal and give us feedback of your experience!


Navigation path

menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID 9 Ans 11/2013 - 66
Member State Czech Republic
Common Name link
Decision type Administrative decision in appeal
Decision date 09/01/2014
Court Supreme Administrative Court
Plaintiff Unicampus, o. s.
Defendant Council for radio and TV broadcast
Keywords consumer, consumer rights organisation, national law

Injunctions Directive, Article 3, (b)

The Directive 2009/22/EC was implemented duly into the Czech law system. The directive gives to the Member States different possibilities of implementation. In general the directive should not affect process principles in Member States. The main sense of the Directive 2009/22/EC is to make the protection of consumers better. This requirement was fulfilled in Czech law system.
The plaintiff used an earlier legal action to impose a fine for inactivity of the defendant (the defendant as authorithy should have taken action against other subjects because of their infringement of laws againt consumers), which may have done harm to consumers. The legal action was rejected by the court of lower level, because the plaintiff was not allowed to be a participant of process. The argumentation of the plaintiff was constructed on Directive 2009/22/EC not being duly implemented into the Czech law system.
The argumentation of the plaintiff, that the Directive 2009/22/EC was not duly implemented into Czech law system, was not correct. The court stated, that there is no possibility to use this Directive 2009/22/EC in this case. But according to the national law, the previous decision should have been considered differently, and so the decision was annulled by the Supreme Administrative Court.
Was the Directive 2009/22/EC duly implemented into the Czech law system?
Full text: Full text

No results available

No results available

The appeal in cassation was accepted. The decision of the defendant was annulled and the case returned to the defendant for further proceedings.