Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Recourse 55/2015
    • Member State: Cyprus
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Administrative decision, first degree
    • Decision date: 10/11/2015
    • Court: Competition and Consumer Protection Service
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Competition and Consumer Protection Service
    • Defendant: Camelot International Health Organisation (Cyprus) Ltd
    • Keywords: black list, consumer, health and safety, misleading advertising, misleading commercial practices, threat, unfair commercial practices, vulnerable consumer
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, 12.
  • Headnote
    Making a materially inaccurate claim concerning the nature and extent of the risk to the personal security of the consumer or his family, if the consumer does not purchase the product, is an unfair commercial practice under any circumstances.
  • Facts
    Following a complaint by the Cyprus Union of Bottlers of Water, the Advertising Control Body informed the Competition and Consumer Protection Service (the "Service") of a first degree (administrative) committee decision in relation to the defendant's advertising campaign for water filters which it was promoting in the Cypriot market. According to the said decision, the advertising campaign of the defendant for water filters, which was broadcasted both online and on TV, was referring, inter alia, to the quality of water offered to consumers, both tap water and bottled water. The references to the quality of both tap water and bottled water were unethical, clearly devastating and presented in a way that created fear to the consumer about water, which is one of the most basic goods. According with what was said in the advertisements, table water - of both surface and underground water - are polluted, containing poisonous substances, even graveyard drainage, asbestos fibers, drugs and/or arsenic, over 77000 dangerous chemical substances etc. The defendant argued that both tap and bottled water are dangerous, but they never expressly referred to Cyprus tap and bottled water; instead, their research and references were about Greek and American waters.
  • Legal issue
    The Service came to the conclusion that the advertisements were indeed addressed to Cypriot consumers, because they referred to the defendant's contact address and number for Cyprus.
    The Service contacted the Ministry of Health, asking for its opinion in relation to the content of the advertisements in question. The Ministry's Health Service agreed that the advertisements were presented in a way that created fear to the consumer about tap water or bottled water. It specified that EU law and national law set clear guidelines about what can be contained in water, both about microbes and chemicals, that the Ministry of Health runs over 5000 water tests per year and no such substances were found in waters tested, therefore the defendant's claims were referring to data of older years, relating in its majority to Greece and not to Cyprus and were presented with clear exaggeration. The Ministry's Health Service presented further evidence that debunked the defendant's claims, and the Service concluded that the defendant was in violation of Annex I (12) of Directive 2005/29/EC (implemented into national law by Annex I A §12 of the Unfair Commercial Practices From Business to Consumers Law 103/(I)2007) for making a materially inaccurate claim concerning the nature and extent of the risk to the personal security of the consumer or his family, if the consumer does not purchase the product. Furthermore, a violation of article 6 (1) of Directive 2005/29/EC (implemented into national law by article 5(1) of the Unfair Commercial Practices From Business to Consumers Law 103/(I)2007) was also found since the commercial practice in question is also misleading because the consumer taking into account all that is told in the advertisements is caused or is likely to be caused to take a transactional decision which he would not have taken otherwise, in order to protect his and his family's health.
  • Decision

    Is making a materially inaccurate claim concerning the nature and extent of the risk to the personal security of the consumer or his family, if the consumer does not purchase the product, an unfair commercial practice, despite the existence of mitigating circumstances?

    URL: http://www.mcit.gov.cy/mcit/cyco/cyconsumer.nsf/All/4E9B60C185132291C2257F54003C0B80/$file/%CE%91%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%86%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B7%202015-55%CE%91%CE%A0%20Camelot%20International%20Health%20Organization%20(Cyprus)%20Ltd.pdf?OpenElement

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The defendant was ordered to remove the misleading content from its website and advertisements. The defendant failed to obey the order, therefore an administrative fine of the amount of €30.000 (thirty thousand euro) was imposed.