Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: UPRS I U 2181/2009
    • Member State: Slovenia
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Court decision in appeal
    • Decision date: 10/11/2010
    • Court: Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia (Ljubljana)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant: The Market Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia, Territorial Department in Ljubljana (Tržni inšpektorat Republike Slovenije, območna enota Ljubljana)
    • Keywords: advertisement, enforcement, misleading price, retail price
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 4., (a) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1., (d)
  • Headnote
    (1) It is a misleading commercial practice to advertise a price reduction, whereas in reality that product has never been sold for the higher price as indicated by the trader.

    (2) The prohibition to engage in an unfair commercial practice in the future, does not have to specify its scope and/or precise content (e.g. products and methods involved).
  • Facts
    On two occasions the appellant advertised, by means of its website and by means of a special catalogue, price reductions being offered to its customers for a limited period of time on a number of products. 

    In each case, two prices were used: a lower one and a higher one, with the latter designating the price of the given product prior to the price reductions or, respectively, the recommended retail price.

    The Market Inspectorate after having conducted an inspection, came to the conclusion that in the case of five of those products, the higher price had never been used as a retail price. After the inspection, it imposed a ban on further pursuit of this commercial practice.

    The appellant appealed to the court against the decision of the Market Inspectorate.
  • Legal issue
    (1) In a short reasoning, the court established that an average consumer, being confronted with two advertised prices of the same product, instinctively comes to the conclusion that, having the possibility to claim the lower one, it could benefit from a price advantage being equal to the difference between the two.

    When the higher price has in fact never been used by the same trader, the court held, this price advantage is non-existent and untrue, and therefore constitutes a misleading commercial practice.

    The court further pointed out, that it was still possible that the facts of the case complied with the terms of the advertisement, i.e. in case of the recommended retail prices. However, the indication that the higher price is only the recommended retail price, is of essential importance for the decision to buy, hence this information should have been clearly indicated. In this respect, a general remark is not sufficient.



    (2) Next, the court concluded that a prohibition for the future to engage in an unfair commercial practice, does not have to specify a certain product, price, advertising period, etc. as its object.



     The court held that the administrative decision was justified in all respects.
  • Decision

    (1) Is it a misleading commercial practice to advertise a price reduction, whereas in reality that product has never been sold for the higher price as indicated by the trader?

    (2) Does the prohibition to engage in an unfair commercial practice in the future, have to specify its scope and/or precise content (e.g. products and methods involved)?

    URL: http://staro.sodisce.si/znanje/sodna_praksa/upravno_sodisce_rs/2010040815253346/

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The Appellant's request was dismissed.