Съдебна практика

  • Данни за случая
    • Национален идентификатор: Supreme Administrative Court, Judgement 9451/2021
    • Държава-членка: България
    • Общоприето наименование:N/A
    • Вид решение: Решение на върховния съд
    • Дата на решението: 16/09/2021
    • Съд: Върховен административен съд
    • Заглавие:
    • Ищец:
    • Ответник:
    • Ключови думи: misleading advertising
  • Членове от директивата
    Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 3 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 3
  • Уводна бележка

    Announcing reductions with an old price, which in one case is the price offered by the trader and in other cases is the recommended price of the manufacturer, is misleading advertising, especially if the manufacturer has not announced a recommended final price to end users.

    The statement "All kitchens at ½ price", combined with the expression "only now" gives the impression that the discount is valid for a short time and will be misleading advertising if the discount is applied periodically for 10 months.

  • Факти

    The trader Enikom-M Ltd. submits a request to the Commission for Protection of Competition against Ludwig Furniture Ltd. (COMO) to identify misleading advertising. The misleading practice is realised by announcing discounts through various advertising methods - brochures, online store ads, radio advertising, posters in stores, etc., in which the crossed out old prices in some cases are prices applied by the trader in previous periods, and in others cases are recommended manufacturer's prices. These circumstances are explained with * and small print below the photo with the discount.

    Apart from that, COMO implements an advertising campaign "All custom kitchens at ½ price", the reduction is calculated on the prices from the product list of the manufacturer.

  • Правен въпрос

    Is the indication of the recommended price or the producer price as an old (previous) price when announcing a discount misleading advertising?

    Is the message "All custom kitchens at ½ price" permissible if the promotion is applied for a long period?

  • Решение

    The CPC and the SAC believe that in both cases there is misleading advertising. The CPC has sent an inquiry to the mentioned producers and only one of them has confirmed that it applies a recommended price, which is not binding. The others stated categorically that they did not set recommended prices for end users for the goods they offered. In this situation, both the CPC and the SAC accept that consumers have the impression that the goods offered to them are economically viable and this is guaranteed by the manufacturer himself, who has introduced a restriction in raising the price when providing it to the seller, but this does not correspond to the truth. In the course of the proceedings before the CPC it was also established that a large part of the goods were offered at the same price over a long period of time, i.e., there was no real "reduction" from the "old" price for previous periods.

    The statement "All custom kitchens at ½ price" is also misleading. In the course of the inspection before the CPC it was established that this promotion is applied periodically between January and the end of October 2017, but the advertisement uses the expression "only now", which gives the impression of brevity of the proposal over time. The CPC accepts that advertising is misleading only for this reason, even if it is assumed that there is a real reduction in price.

    URL: http://www.sac.government.bg/court22.nsf/d038edcf49190344c2256b7600367606/8d3ec6a5bee33815c22587510044f35b?OpenDocument

    Пълен текст: Пълен текст

  • Свързани случаи

    Няма налични резултати

  • Правна литература

    Няма налични резултати

  • Резултат

    The Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Commission for Protection of Competition, which imposed a property sanction on the favoured trader, reducing its amount due to a violation by the CPC of the methodology for determining property sanctions.