Article 3 1.
Annex I al1 14.
|National ID||Supreme Court, 20 May 2008|
|Common name||Decision type||Supreme court decision|
|Court||Hof van Cassatie / Cour de Cassation||Plaintiff(s)||ACN Communications Belgium bvba|
|Court translation||Supreme Court||Defendant(s)|
+ Expand all
A legal provision that applies to both a B2C and B2B context, must not be interpreted in accordance with the UCP Directive when applied in a B2B context.
The plaintiff filed a Supreme Court appeal against the decision of the Antwerp Court of Appeal in which a certain definition of pyramid selling was given.
The plaintiff argued that the proposed definition of pyramid selling was not in accordance with the purposes of the UCP Directive. According to the plaintiff, pyramid selling is only prohibited when the participants of the selling network have a chance of gaining profit through the extension of the network, rather than through the actual selling of the products or services.
The legal proceedings occurred in a business-to-business ("B2B") context.
Must a national provision that applies to both the B2B and B2C context, be interpreted in accordance with the purposes of the UCP Directive, when applied in a B2B context?
According to the Belgian Supreme Court, recital 6 and article 3.1 of the UCP Directive clearly state that the Directive only applies to unfair business-to-consumer ("B2C") commercial practices, and does not apply to business-to-business ("B2B") commercial practices.
The legal provision in question applied both to a B2C and B2B relationship.
The Supreme Court held ithat this provision, when applied in a B2B context, must not be interpreted in light of the purposes of the UCP Directive.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The Supreme Court appeal was rejected
|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.|