Case detailB a c k
Article 5 1.
Article 5 2. (a)
|National ID||3516/2013, VII d.|
|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|
|Keywords||cessation of contract, judicial review, misleading omissions, precontractual information, professional diligence|
+ Expand all
Not providing consumers with the mandatorily required information on distance contracts, runs afoul of the requirements to act in accordance with professional diligence.
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.
Does not providing consumers with the mandatorily required information on distance contracts, run afoul of the requirements to act in accordance with professional diligence?
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|
The court upheld the first instance court’s judgment that confirmed the defendant’s ban.
|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.|