European Commission

 

Case detail



Directive article Article 5 1.
Article 5 2. (a)
National ID 3516/2013, VII d.
Country Bulgaria Decision date 18/05/2013
Common name 3516/2013, VII d. Decision type Supreme court decision
Court Върховен административен съд (София) Plaintiff(s) Bulgarian Telecommunication Company AD
Court translation Supreme Administrative Court (Sofia) Defendant(s) Consumer Protection Commission Bulgarian
Subject distance contracting
Keywords cessation of contractjudicial reviewmisleading omissionsprecontractual informationprofessional diligence

+ Expand all

Headnote

Not providing consumers with the mandatorily required information on distance contracts, runs afoul of the requirements to act in accordance with professional diligence.

Facts

As a matter of recurring business practice, the plaintiff concluded distance contracts with consumers. The applicable Bulgarian consumer protection legislation required that the plaintiff confirm in writing the conclusion of the distance contract not later than upon delivery of the good or fulfilment of the contractual obligations.

However, the plaintiff did not provide such confirmation. Only when consumers decided to terminate the distance contract and sent the plaintiff a termination notice, the plaintiff reacted by sending back an official notification regarding the effects of the distance contract.

The official notification stated that the contract was validly concluded and had entered into force, and, should consumers wish to terminate it, all outstanding payments under the contract (e.g. monthly services fees for the entire contract term) would be due as a compensation for the premature termination.

The defendant considered that such practice was unfair because it ran contrary to the requirements of professional diligence. The defendant banned the practice.

Legal issue

Does not providing consumers with the mandatorily required information on distance contracts, run afoul of the requirements to act in accordance with professional diligence?

Decision

The court upheld the defendant’s decision. The practice was deemed to breach professional diligence requirements and be apt to pressuring consumers to abide by the contract.

  URL Decision Decision full text
EN N/A

Result

The court upheld the first instance court’s judgment that confirmed the defendant’s ban.

Additional information

Date Description URL
There is no events for this case.

Related case(s)

National ID Common Name Subject Country Link type
There is no related cases for this case.

Legal Literature

Title Author
There is no Legal Literature for this case.