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

(1) Charging a consumer more than the price displayed constitutes a misleading commercial practice.

(2) Claiming falsely that the trader has an interest in making products available for a category of consumers, whereas in reality the trader has no such interest constitutes a misleading commercial practice.

(3) Inducing consumers into signing a form which states that the consumer has explicitly requested the trader to visit the consumer, whereas in reality the consumer has not made any such request constitutes a misleading commercial practice.

The defendant imposed a fine amounting to CZK 100,000 upon the plaintiff for a violation of the Act on the Protection of Consumers, based on the following facts:

- the Plaintiff had billed the purchase of lanolin (Wolin) incorrectly in the amount of CZK 200 instead of CZK 199 (i.e. CZK 1 to the detriment of consumers), by which it violated Section 3(c) of the Act on the Protection of Consumers;

- during promotional events, a sales representative of the plaintiff made a false declaration that the plaintiff would have an interest in making its products available for pensioners for which it obtained funds from the EU whereas in reality the EU does not provide such subsidies;

- the sales representative provided the consumer with a purchase agreement and a form named "Agreement on the agreed visit for the purpose of ordering and delivering goods" which contained a provision that "the consumer hereby acknowledges that a right to withdraw from a consumer agreement pursuant to Section 57 par. 1 of the Civil Code shall not apply", this pursuant to the fact that the consumer itself had requested the visit from the plaintiff (in which case the withdrawal right does not apply). In reality, the agreement was concluded during a promotional event (i.e. outside the commercial premises of the company), hence the plaintiff was not requested by the consumer in advance to visit the consumer.

The plaintiff first challenged defendant's decision to impose a fine before the Municipal Court in Prague ("Municipal Court"). The Municipal Court dismissed the defendant's decision on the grounds that its reasoning about the fine was not reviewable. The defendant subsequently filed a cassation complaint against the decision of the Municipal Court with the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the decision of the Municipal Court and returned the case to the Municipal Court for further proceedings.

(1) Does it constitute an unfair commercial practice to charge a consumer more than the price displayed?

(2) Does it constitute an unfair commercial practice to falsely claim that the trader has an interest in making products available for a category of consumers, whereas in reality the trader has no such interest?

(3) Does it constitute an unfair commercial practice to induce consumers into signing a form which states that the consumer has explicitly requested the trader to visit the consumer, whereas in reality the consumer has not made any such request?

In its short reasoning, the court took into consideration all factual evidence and the relevant provisions of Czech law, including the legal provisions implementing the UCP Directive, which was one of the decisive factors for the original decision of the defendant. Based thereon, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and returned the case back to the Municipal Court.

Úplné znění: Úplné znění

Výsledky nejsou k dispozici.

Výsledky nejsou k dispozici.

The Municipal Court is bound by the legal opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court in the further proceedings before the Municipal Court.