The court ruled that, at the time of the conclusion of the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants in relation to placing an advertisement on its website, the plaintiffs were in a similar position as a consumer. This was based on the following:
- the plaintiffs were small organizations with a low budget, while the defendants, on the contrary, were commercial companies concluding commercial contracts on a daily basis; - in the present case, the plaintiffs concluded contracts containing clauses that went beyond the scope of their normal businesses; - the defendants had taken the initiative to contact the plaintiffs by phone to offer services; - a consumer could have entered into such agreements as well.
In the light of the above mentioned factors, the court ruled that the UCP-rules are applicable also to SMEs.
In short, the court ruled that there was a misrepresentation in respect of the nature of the product, the price and the nature, attributes and rights of the trader (defendants). This constituted an unfair commercial practice on the basis of which the agreements were nullified.