Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság v UPC Magyarország Kft, C-388/13, EU:C:[2015]:225 – Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 UCPD – (CPUTR).
1) where a commercial practice is misleading within article 6(1) UCPD, it does not also have to be contrary to the requirements of professional diligence under article 5(2)(a) in order to be unfair and prohibited by article 5(1).
2) that erroneous information was given on only one occasion and affected only one single consumer was immaterial as to whether it constituted a “misleading commercial practice”.
3) whether misleading practice is unintentional entirely irrelevant, as is whether actual harm suffered by consumer.
- word ‘likely’ in article 6 essentially preventive; suffices that misleading information capable of adversely influencing consumer.
- fact that additional cost imposed on consumer is insignificant is irrelevant.
4) assumption under UCPD that consumer is in weaker position than trader; thus whether consumer could obtain correct information for himself was irrelevant.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R v X Ltd [2013] EWCA Crim 818 – Regs 2, 8, 9 and 12 and para 12 of Sch 1 CPUTR.
1) prima facie evidence of material inaccuracy. 2) a “commercial practice” can be derived from a single incident. 3) a “transactional decision” is not limited to the formation of the contract. 4) the contravention of professional diligence in respect of a single consumer can constitute an offence. 5) not necessary to identify controlling mind to establish corporate knowledge or recklessness. 6) under the law of precedent a judgment of the Crown Court has no authoritative value.