Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: XVII AmA 76/12
    • Member State: Poland
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 12/12/2013
    • Court: District Court in Warsaw - Court for the Protection of Competition and Consumers
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: I.K. and R.P.
    • Defendant: President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection
    • Keywords: distance contracting, Distance Selling Directive, information obligation
  • Directive Articles
    Distance Selling Directive, Article 5, 1.
  • Headnote
    The requirement to inform the consumer in writing with prior information regarding the conclusion of a distance contract cannot be fulfilled by placing this information on trader’s website.
  • Facts
    The Plaintiff appealed against the decision issued by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.
    President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection declared certain practices as infringing collective consumer interests. One of those practices was that information addressed to consumers was not delivered in writing. The Plaintiff claimed that the publication of the information regarding its offers on Plaintiff’s website fulfils the requirement to inform the consumer in writing.
  • Legal issue
    The court acknowledged the argumentation of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection that placing the required information on the Plaintiff’s website did not fulfil the requirement to inform the consumer in writing about certain essential elements of the contract, such as the identity of the supplier or main characteristics of goods or services. The requirement may only be satisfied by supplying information using other durable medium, such as a CD.
  • Decision

    Can the requirement to inform the consumer in writing with prior information regarding the conclusion of a distance contract be fulfilled by placing it on the trader’s website?

    URL: http://orzeczenia.ms.gov.pl/content.pdffile/$002fneurocourt$002fpublished$002f15$002f450500$002f0005127$002fAmA$002f2012$002f000076$002f154505000005127_XVII_AmA_000076_2012_Uz_2013-12-12_002-publ.xml?t:ac=$N/154505000005127_XVII_AmA_000076_2012_Uz_2013-12-12_002

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The court upheld the contested decision in part.