Sodna praksa

  • Podatki o zadevi
    • Nacionalna ID: UL0011404
    • Država članica: Slovenija
    • Splošno ime:N/A
    • Vrsta odločbe: Sodna odločba v pritožbenem postopku
    • Datum odločbe: 01/09/2015
    • Sodišče: Upravno sodišče
    • Zadeva:
    • Tožnik: Unknown
    • Toženec: The Market Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia
    • Ključne besede: B2C, misleading advertising, misleading commercial practices, misleading statements
  • Členi direktive
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1.
  • Uvodna opomba
    (1) A commercial practice is considered misleading if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful.
    (2) A commercial practice is also considered misleading if it in any way, including overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct, in relation to one or more listed elements, and if it causes, or is likely to cause, the consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise, in particular regarding the price, the method of calculation of that price, or certain price advantages.
    (3) Advertising is considered misleading especially if it is capable of creating a false impression for the consumer about certain facts that are important to him, prior to the conclusion of the transaction.
  • Dejstva
    With the challenged decision, the Market Inspectorate (first instance) prohibited the plaintiff to use unfair commercial practices which the plaintiff was using by advertising in catalogues, newspapers, on TV, and on its website. The plaintiff was using a catchphrase "nowhere cheaper", under which it was stated: "you cannot purchase these products cheaper in any store other than the stores A and B". The Market Inspectorate found that these statements were untrue, because certain products were sold at lower prices at stores of competitors.
  • Pravna zadeva
    (1) When is a commercial practice considered misleading?
    (2) Is a commercial practice considered misleading, even if the information is factually correct, in relation to one or more elements?
    (3) When is advertising considered misleading?
  • Odločba

    The administrative court upheld the decision of the Market Inspectorate, as it found its reasoning substantiated. The court found that the plaintiff was deceiving or likely to deceive the average consumer regarding the cost benefits and therefore in either case caused or was likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise, which would result in a detriment to the consumer.

    URL: http://www.sodnapraksa.si/?q=id:2015081111389245&database%5bSOVS%5d=SOVS&database%5bIESP%5d=IESP&database%5bVDSS%5d=VDSS&database%5bUPRS%5d=UPRS&_submit=išči&page=0&id=2015081111389245

    Celotno besedilo: Celotno besedilo

  • Povezane zadeve

    Zadetki niso na voljo

  • Pravna literatura

    Zadetki niso na voljo

  • Zadetek
    The plaintiff's request was denied.