Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision Nr.E03-KREUD-23
    • Member State: Latvia
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Administrative decision, first degree
    • Decision date: 15/04/2010
    • Court: Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Riga)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords: black list, illegal products, misleading commercial practices, misleading statements, misrepresentation
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 4., (a) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 4, Article 13 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, 9.
  • Headnote
    Annex I-9 of the UCP Directive is violated when a trader advertises for employment services for which it is not licensed.
  • Facts
    The trader was placing advertisements with certain job offers in the media. The Consumer Rights Protection Centre found that the trader did not hold the necessary license for job placement services.  

    The trader admitted that it did not hold the license, but claimed that:

    (1) the respective potential employers had authorized the trader to conclude the employment agreements on their behalf; and

    (2) after the license was lost, no new employment agreements were concluded with potential employees, and all existing customers had been informed that the service was discontinued.
  • Legal issue
    (1) The trader had not submitted any evidence that the potential employers had authorised the trader to conclude employment agreements on their behalf. The Consumer Rights Protection Centre concluded that the promotion of a service which the trader is not legally entitled to provide, constitutes a misleading commercial practice and breaches Annex I-9 of the UCP Directive. 

    (2) The Consumer Rights Protection Centre did not review the argument that no harm was done to consumers as no customers were attracted, no employment contracts were concluded and all those who had expressed an interest had been notified about the termination of the service. There was no evidence provided by the trader that confirmed the accuracy of this statement.
  • Decision

    (1) Can a trader promote a service which requires a special license when the trader does not hold such license?

    (2) Is it relevant that no actual clients were attracted and that no contracts were concluded, when considering the violation at stake?

    URL: http://www.ptac.gov.lv/upload/ptac_lemumi/2010/r_e_expert_izraksts_15.04.2010.pdf

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The trader was penalised for having committed an unfair commercial practice.