Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Decision nr 8/2010
    • Member State: Poland
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Administrative decision, first degree
    • Decision date: 29/07/2010
    • Court: The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection in Warsaw
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: The President of Competition and Consumer Protection
    • Defendant: Bank BPH S.A. (Cracow)
    • Keywords: average consumer, economic behaviour, financial services, material distortion, misleading commercial practices, transactional decision
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 2. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1.
  • Headnote
    It is a misleading omission to advertise a fixed-term savings deposit without mentioning that the interest rate is actually variable. 
  • Facts
    The object of the proceedings was the promotional campaign of defendant (a bank), encouraging actual and potential clients of the bank to take advantage of the offer "Przyjaźń procentuje" ("Friendship pays off") for fixed-term savings deposits.

    From 17 November to 19 December 2009, the defendant published materials in the form of brochures, labelled "Recommendation Certificates".

    The President of the Office of the Competition and Consumer started proceedings, as the trader was misleading the consumer, because the brochures did not state that the terms of the offer (including the interest rate for the deposits) were subject to modification.
  • Legal issue
    The President of the Office of the Competition and Consumer Protection considered that the brochures created the impression that the interest rates were invariable, while this was in fact not the case. In the opinion of the President, the brochure distorts (or is likely to distort) the economic behaviour of the average consumer.
  • Decision

    Is it unfair to promote a fixed-term savings deposit, without indicating that the interest rate is actually subject to change? 

    URL: http://www.bph.pl/res/docs/decyzja_uokik.pdf

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The practice of the defendant was found to be unfair. 

    The President of the Office ordered to publish the administrative decision, not only on the defendant's website, but also in the first five pages of a nationwide journal.