Article 8 al1
Article 9 al1
|National ID||15182/2011, VII d.|
|Common name||Decision type||Supreme court decision|
|Court||Върховен административен съд (София)||Plaintiff(s)||Cosmo Bulgaria Mobile EAD|
|Court translation||Supreme Administrative Court (Sofia)||Defendant(s)||Consumer Protection Commission|
|Subject||cancellation of contract|
|Keywords||terms & conditions, contract law, right of withdrawal, rights of the trader|
+ Expand all
It constitutes an aggressive commercial practice when a trader makes the termination of a service agreement dependent on numerous cumulative conditions, and when the trader limits the consumer’s freedom of choice and imposes an unwanted renewal of the agreement to the consumer.
The plaintiff imposed additional requirements upon consumers for the termination of their agreements. In particular, the agreements could be terminated only upon submission of a specific termination and waiver form, which could only be sent to the plaintiff’s offices and this on a specific date (on the last day of the termination notice period). Neither the individual agreement nor the plaintiff’s general terms and conditions, however, provided for such requirements. The individual agreements envisaged that the termination of the agreement required only a one month prior notice to the plaintiff.
Can a trader make the termination of a service agreement dependent on numerous cumulative conditions, limit the consumer’s freedom of choice and impose an unwanted renewal of the agreement to the consumer?
The court found that the plaintiff’s requirements constituted an automatic repeated renewal of the agreements under the same contractual terms and conditions, which deprived consumers of their right of termination with a prior notice under the agreement.
The court held that such practice constitutes an aggressive commercial practice.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The ban on the commercial practice was upheld.
|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.|