Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1., (d)

The mentioning of a total price for a product, this price being partially based upon incorrect information regarding a mandatory additional charge, constitutes a misleading commercial practice.

The defendant imposed a fine amounting to CZK 30,000 on the plaintiff for a violation of the Consumers Protection Act based on the following facts:

The plaintiff has issued a written advertisement brochure to advertise its travel services. The advertisement contained information on the prices of various package holidays. The plaintiff included information regarding a mandatory additional charge for a travel insurance even though this information was not correct. Furthermore, the plaintiff provided his customers with information about the total price for a package holiday which was not actually, exhaustive and evoked a feeling that the price of the package holiday was lower.

The plaintiff's appeal was rejected by the defendant. This decision was later rejected by the Municipal Court in Prague. The plaintiff brought an administrative appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The plaintiff challenged the decision of the defendant, stating that the advertisement did not intend to mislead the customer. The plaintiff stated that the price was displayed in full and the customer was not misled.

The plaintiff demanded the annulment the fine imposed by the defendant.

The court took into consideration all factual evidence and the relevant Czech law provisions including the UCP Directive, respectively the explanatory report to the amendment which transposes the UCP Directive in the Consumers Protection Act.

The court ruled that there is no legitimate reason to advertise the price of package holidays in such an unclear form and that the average consumer could be easily misled.

 

Does the mentioning of a total price for a product, this price being partially based upon incorrect information regarding a mandatory additional charge, constitute a misleading commercial practice?

URL: http://www.nssoud.cz/main0col.aspx?cls=JudikaturaBasicSearch&SimpleSearch=1&&rjz_id=12&rok=2011&senat=1&cislo=59

Full text: Full text

No results available

No results available

The court has entirely denied the plaintiff's request and confirmed that the advertisement qualified as a misleading advertisement.