Case detailB a c k
Article 5 1.
Article 7 1.
Article 7 4. (c)
|National ID||Decision nr RŁO 9/2010|
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji I Konsumentów w Warszawie||Plaintiff(s)||The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection|
|Court translation||The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection in Warsaw||Defendant(s)||Grzegorz Daszkowski trading under the name of ETNA, seated in Lodz|
|Keywords||misleading omissions, misleading price, price information|
+ Expand all
Failing to determine the amount of the applicable VAT in the price of services, is a misleading omission that can influence the transactional decision of the consumer.
The object of the proceedings were the contractual standards of a claim for damages agreement, and a power of attorney used by the trader when concluding agreements with consumers with the intention to claim for damages in the name of consumers.
The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection started proceedings in order to determine whether the contractual standards were misleading, as they contained provisions determining the amount of remuneration of the trader, by stating only the net value of the amount due, without determining the rate of the tax on goods and services (VAT) required to be paid.
Does an omission to determine the amount of the tax on goods and services (VAT) in the price for the services offered by the trader constitute a misleading commercial practice?
The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection considered that the omission to determine the amount of tax on goods and services (VAT) is unlawful, and infringes consumer interests.
The President also considered that the manner to determine the price of services offered by the trader in the contractual standards does not meet the requirements of the art. 6 sec. 4 pt. 3 of the Polish Prevention of Unfair Commercial Practices Act.
The President also considered that the consumer is misled by the fact that the contractual provisions do not explicitly state the amount of remuneration including tax on goods and services (VAT). Consumers who are presented with agreements that only state the net value of the remuneration without the amount of the tax on goods and services (VAT), may consider the price to be exceptionally beneficial for them. As a result, such commercial practice deceives (or is likely to deceive) the average consumer, and cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The practice of the trader was found to be unfair.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|