Case detailB a c k
Article 5 2. (a)
Article 7 1.
Article 8 al1
Annex I al2 29.
|National ID||Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania decision of 20 February 2012 in case No A-525-284-2012|
|Common name||Decision type||Supreme court decision|
|Court||Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracnis teismas (Vilnius)||Plaintiff(s)||UAB “Monetų namai“|
|Court translation||Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (Vilnius)||Defendant(s)||State Consumer Rights Protection Authority|
|Keywords||aggressive commercial practices, black list, information requirements, informed choice, informed decision, unordered product|
+ Expand all
(1) The omission to mention that after ordering one object, the consumer will receive more goods and will be requested to pay for such goods, constitutes an unfair commercial practice.
(2) The practice of the plaintiff whereby product invoices are delivered to consumers having rejected such products, constitutes an aggressive commercial practice.
(3) A practice whereby a trader sends products by mail and later requests payment for such products without being sure that the consumers have actually received the products, constitutes a practice contrary to the rules of professional diligence.
The plaintiff sent flyers proposing the consumers to order coins and medals without properly informing the consumers that after one order was made more coins and medals would be sent to the consumers without asking their permission. In addition, invoices for the aforementioned goods which the consumers did not order, were sent by the plaintiff. The State Consumer Rights Protection Authority ruled that the practices concerned constituted unfair commercial practices and imposed a fine of LTL 20,000 (approx. EUR 5,792).
The plaintiff brought a claim to the Vilnius District Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the decision of the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority. The Vilnius District Administrative Court rejected the claim.
The plaintiff brought a claim to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania.
(1) Does the omission to mention that after ordering one object the consumer will receive more goods and will be requested to pay for such goods, constitute an unfair commercial practice?
(2) Does the practice of the plaintiff whereby product invoices are delivered to consumers having rejected such products, constitute an aggressive commercial practice?
(3) Does a practice whereby a trader sends products by mail and later requests payment for such products without being sure that the consumers have actually received the products, constitute a practice contrary to the rules of with professional diligence?
(1) The court ruled that the plaintiff, while distributing the coins and medals, did not inform the consumers on the price and size of the full collection of the coins and medals. According to the court, this constitutes a misleading omission as the consumers are provided with misleading and fragmentary information due to which the average consumer is deceived or is likely to be deceived to take a transactional decision that she/he would not have taken otherwise.
(2) In addition, the practice of the plaintiff that when additional coins and medals together with invoices were delivered to the consumers after the consumers rejected them, were acknowledged as aggressive commercial practices.
(3) The fact that the plaintiff was sending coins and medals to the post boxes of the consumers and later requesting the consumers to pay for the afore-specified objects without being sure that the consumers had actually received the coins and medals, was evaluated by the court as incompatible with professional diligence.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The court rejected the claim.
|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.|