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

Mentioning in small letters only on a leaflet that additional charges may also need to be taken into account to form the complete price constitues a misleading practice.

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

The defendant, as a seller, stated in its commercial information towards customers (a leaflet) that a travel insurance named "BlueComfort", which defendant offered, was a mandatory additional charge to a certain package price. In reality however, this information was incorrect as the travel insurance was not mandatory. Plaintiff, as a result of this, held that defendant violated Section 8 of the Act on the Protection of Consumers.

Next, in the same leaflet, the defendant provided customers with information about the package price. This information was, according to the plaintiff, incomplete and gave the impression that the package price was lower than it was in reality as it provided various hotels and different prices and did not clearly mention how the price indicated was calculated. By doing so, so the plaintiff had ruled, the defendant had violated Section 12 of the Act on the Protection of Consumers.

The defendant challenged the decision of the plaintiff before the Municipal Court in Prague. The Municipal Court dismissed the plaintiff's decision stating that:

1) the defendant could not have violated Section 8 of the Act on the Protection of Consumers, as the Section in question was already repealed at the time of the decision of the plaintiff;

2) the leaflet in question clearly contained a list of 13 hotels with a specification of their quality and price, and  the defendant visibly mentioned in a footnote which items constituted the price and which did not.

Plaintiff, on its turn, filed a cassation complaint against the decision of the Municipal court with the Supreme Administrative Court.  

The court first ruled that the decision of the Municipal Court in Prague was partly unreviewable.

On the question of the price indication, the court considered that the defendant had written the information concerning the fact that the price is also formed by additional charges, by using very small letters. As a result, so the court ruled, consumers could easily have overlooked the information or might have been required to make additional calculations in order to be able to find out the final price of the package.

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the decision of the Municipal Court in Prague on the question of the price indication and returned the case to the Municipal Court for further proceedings.

Does it constitute a misleading practice to mention in small letters only on a leaflet, that additional charges may also need to be taken into account to form the complete price?  

Full text: Full text

No results available

No results available

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