Case detailB a c k
Article 2 (h)
Article 5 2. (a)
|National ID||Decision no. 373/2012|
|Common name||Decision no. 373/2012||Decision type||Court decision in appeal|
|Court||Tribunalul Brașov||Plaintiff(s)||S.C. Credit Europe Bank Romania S.A.|
|Court translation||Brasov Tribunal||Defendant(s)||National Authority for Consumer Protection|
|Keywords||consumer rights, deceiving commercial practice, professional diligence|
+ Expand all
The performance of unauthorized banking operations in relation to customers` bank accounts, without the customers` approval, while the trader fails to undertake any investigations in order to discover the illicit operations performed by its employees, represents an unfair commercial practice.
On 18 August 2010 the plaintiff was sanctioned by the defendant with an administrative fine in the amount of approximately EUR 11,210 in accordance with Art. 15 of Law no. 363/2007. Following an inspection performed by the defendant at the plaintiff's premises, the defendant discovered that several banking operations had been performed without the customers' prior authorization, consisiting of partial or entire withdrawals of the amounts contained within the customers' bank accounts. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to undertake any investigations in order to discover the illicit operations performed by its employees.
The plaintiff filed an action challenging the sanctioning minutes issued by the defendant with the Brasov Courthouse. This court of first instance rejected the plaintiff's action and stated that the platintiff conducted an unfair commercial practice towards it consumers, which is contrary to its professional diligence, respectively to the standard of care reasonably expected by consumers from the trader in accordance with the fair market practices applicable in the economic sector in which the trader operates.
Does the performance of unauthorized banking operations in relation to customers` bank accounts, without the customers` approval, while the trader fails to undertake any investigations in order to discover the illicit operations performed by its employees, represent an unfair commercial practice?
The court rejected the arguments of the plaintiff claiming that its actions did not represent an unfair commercial practice. The court approved with the reasoning of the court of first instance and dismissed the appeal, considering that the plaintiff's practices amounted to unfair commercial practices.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff`s appeal was rejected and therefore the judgment of the Brasov Courthouse imposing adiministrative sanctions for the plaintiff was confirmed.
|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.|