European Commission


Case detail

Directive article Article 5 2. (b)
Article 6 1. (d)
National ID A442-90/2013
Country Lithuania Decision date 17/01/2013
Common name A442-90/2013 Decision type Court decision in appeal
Court Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas Plaintiff(s) UAB „Armitana“
Court translation Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania Defendant(s) State Consumer Rights Protection Authority
Subject promotional sales
Keywords discountsinformation obligationmaterial informationmisleading omissionsseasonal sales

+ Expand all


Omitting to clearly indicate which products are subject to an advertised discount, constitutes an unfair commercial practice.


The plaintiff, a shoe selling company, distributed leaflets across the Internet advertising a 40% discount applicable in the web shops operated by the plaintiff, and this on the autumn/winter collection of shoes.

After conducting a research, the defendant had established that it was not possible to clearly determine whether or not the product of the plaintiff pertained to the autumn/winter collection, hence would benefit from the discount advertised.

The defendant fined the plaintiff for unfair commercial practice, and the plaintiff appealed to this decision. 

Legal issue

Does omitting to clearly indicate which products are subject to an advertised discount, constitute an unfair commercial practice?


The court stated that the plaintiff, failing to provide clear and unambiguous information on the products which benefited from the advertised discount, created the impression for consumers that all of plaintiff's products (except those explicitly belonging to the "new collection") would be subject to that discount.

According to the court, the first instance court has correctly established that the circumstances of the case prove that the activity of the plaintiff does not adhere to the requirements of professional diligence and that it materially distorts or can materially distort an average consumer’s economic behavioUr in respect of the offered products.

According to the court, this allows to reasonably state that the plaintiff has committed an unfair commercial practice.

  URL Decision Decision full text


The plaintiff’s request was denied.

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.