European Commission

 

Case detail

B a c k

Directive article Article 5 1.
National ID Ombudsman of the Consumer 11th of February 2013 (Νo of protocol 3700)
Country Greece Decision date 11/02/2013
Common name Decision type Other
Court Συνήγορος του καταναλωτή Plaintiff(s) Unknown
Court translation Ombudsman of the Consumer Defendant(s) E.F.G. EUROBANK ERGASIAS
Subject investments
Keywords financial servicesmisleading omissions

+ Expand all

Headnote

A commercial practice of a financial institution, consisting in investing the savings of a consumer without such consumer having consented to such investments, constitutes an unfair commercial practice.

Facts

The Ombudsman of the Consumer received a complaint from a plaintiff on 25 January 2012 in which it was stated that the defendant, a financial institution, had invested the plaintiff's savings into investment products without the plaintiff's prior approval.

The defendant answered that due to the volume of the transactions, the consumer was treated like a client who had experience and knowledge in financial transactions.

Furthermore, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was regularly informed by standard printouts of her portfolio evaluation.
 

Legal issue

Does a commercial practice of a financial institution, consisting in investing the savings of a consumer without such consumer having consented to such investments, constitute an unfair commercial practice?

Decision

The Ombudsman held that the plaintiff was not categorized according to the risk that she was willing to take neither to the amount that he she was willing to invest nor to her investment knowledge and targets.

It was therefore held that the practice followed by the defendant in relation to the investment of the savings of the plaintiff, was not legitimate, since during the initial contract for the provision of investment services as well as during the revised contract the plaintiff was not treated in accordance with the applicable risk profile.

As such, the Ombudsman recommended to the defendant to compensate the plaintiff because it had invested its savings into diverse investment products without following the aforementioned legally binding categorization.
 

  URL Decision Decision full text
EN N/A

Result

The Ombudsman of the Consumer recommended to defendant to compensate the 95% of the damage caused to the plaintiff and asked from both parties to notify the Ombudsman in writing whether they accepted the recommendation.

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.