European Commission


Case detail

B a c k

Directive article Article 2 (b)
Article 2 (d)
Article 2 (k)
Article 3 1.
Article 5 1.
Article 5 2.
Article 7 1.
Article 7 4.
Article 7 5.
Article 13 al1
National ID Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision Nr. E03-REUD-54
Country Latvia Decision date 10/12/2009
Common name Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Court Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs (Rīga) Plaintiff(s) /
Court translation Consumer Rights Protection Centre Defendant(s) AS „Air Baltic Corporation”
Subject Air Services Regulation
Keywords Air Services Regulationdecision to purchasemisleading omissionsprice information

+ Expand all


The failure to advertise airplane ticket prices in accordance with the rules imposed by the Air Services Regulation constitutes an unfair commercial practice. It is irrelevant whether consumers have actually entered into a contract due to the incorrect pricing.


The Consumer Rights Protection Centre (CRPC) found that the trader, an airline company, did not identify the final price of the air fare on its website (as required by the Air Services Regulation). The trader argued that it was a technical issue of its website set up that did not allow it to comply with the Air Services Regulation.

Legal issue

Does the failure to comply with Air Services Regulation in terms of displaying the final air fare price on the website, constitute an unfair commercial practice?


The CPRC decided that providing information on a website is a commercial practice.

It also decided that it is not necessary to demonstrate that consumers have actually entered into a contract. It is sufficient to show that, as a result of the commercial practice, the consumer either decides to make the purchasing decision, or to refrain from it.

Hence, the UCP Directive applies to all of the trader's actions (or omissions) to attract consumer to its website, even before the consumer has taken the purchasing decision.

As the final price (which constitutes material information for the consumer in its transactional decision making process) was not identified correctly, the trader is committing a misleading omission defined in article 7.4.(c) of the UCP Directive.

  URL Decision Decision full text
LV Click here


The defendant was found liable for having committed an unfair commercial practice. A fine was imposed.

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.