Article 6 1. (d)
||National ID||Sodba II U 353/2012|
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (zunanji oddelek v Mariboru)||Plaintiff(s)||N/A|
|Court translation||Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia (external department in Maribor)||Defendant(s)||Trade Inspection of the Republic of Slovenia|
|Keywords||misleading advertising, misleading statements, prizes|
+ Expand all
Claiming that a prize will be received for free, whereas in reality the consumer is obliged to pay an income tax on this prize, constitutes misleading advertising.
The case at hand is a first-instance decision in an administrative dispute procedure, following an administrative procedure.
The plaintiff, in the course of his business, was advertising that when buying six electronics packages, one of those six packages would be received "for free".
The defendant held that this constituted misleading advertising due to income tax being payable.
Does claiming that a prize will be received for free, whereas in reality the consumer is obliged to pay an income tax on this prize, constitute misleading advertising?
Rather than formally being a part of the decision of the court in this case, the court simply reiterated the decision and reasoning of the defendant in the administrative procedure.
Namely, any prize received by a consumer without consideration cannot be considered free since the consumer is required to pay income tax on that prize.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff's request was denied.
|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.|