Case detailB a c k
Article 5 1.
||National ID||Ombudsman of the Consumer 11th of February 2013 (Νo of protocol 3700)|
|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|
|Keywords||financial services, misleading omissions|
+ Expand all
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.
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.
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?
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|
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.
|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.|