Case detailB a c k
Article 2 (d)
Article 3 1.
Article 5 2.
|National ID||Administratīvās rajona tiesas spriedums lietā Nr.A421020509|
|Common name||Decision type||Court decision, first degree|
|Court||Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Rēzekne)||Plaintiff(s)||i/u “Dils”|
|Court translation||District Court of Administrative Cases (Rēzekne)||Defendant(s)||Ministry of Economics of the Republic of Latvia|
|Keywords||B2B, cessation of contract, contract law, entry into force|
+ Expand all
(1) A national act which implements the provisions of the UCP Directive, does not have a retroactive effect.
(2) The legal consequences of an agreement are not to be considered as constituting commercial practices.
(3) The non-performance of a contract is not to be considered a commercial practice.
On 16 October 2009, the plaintiff applied to the Consumer Rights Protection Centre (CRPC), requesting to evaluate actions of SIA “Alfa Līzings” under an agreement concluded by both parties on 20 January 2005 for their compliance with Latvian Unfair Commercial Practice Prohibition Law (UCPPL).
CRPC decided not to adjudicate on the application, because the disputed conduct took place before the UCPPL's entry into force. The Ministry of Economics of the Republic of Latvia supported the decision of CRPC.
The plaintiff was of the opinion that CRPC had to examine the case and argued that:
(1) the UCPPL has retroactive effect;
(2) the legal consequences of an agreement can be considered as a commercial practice;
(3) the nonperformance of a contract can also be considered as a commercial practice.
(1) Does a national act which implements the provisions of the UCP Directive, have retroactive effect?
(2) Are legal consequences of an agreement, to be considered as constituting commercial practices?
(3) Is the non-performance of a contract to be considered a commercial practice?
(1) Evaluating the provisions of the UCPPL, the court found that the legal provisions of the UCPLL do not hold a retroactive effect.
The CPRC would only have to examine the submission of the plaintiff, if SIA “Alfa Līzings” would have performed an intentional act or omission after the UCPPL came into force or it would have been commenced before the UCPPL came into force and having a continuing nature it would have continued after the UCPPL came into force.
(2) The court established that although the terms of the agreement had consequences, e.g. parties had been vested with certain rights and responsibilities, the legal consequences of the agreement cannot be considered commercial practices under the definition of the UCPPL.
(3) In a short reasoning, the court also considered that the non-performance of the agreement cannot be considered to constitute a commercial practice, since legal provisions do not provide so.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The claims of the plaintiff were dismissed.
|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.|