ANNEX
List of Court cases mentioned in this Notice (arranged by the year of the judgment) Case number and name Issue(s) Section(s) in the Notice 2009 Joined cases C-261/07 Total Belgium and C-299/07 Galatea BVBA — The full harmonisation character of the Directive precludes national legislation that provides for a blanket prohibition on combined offers, even if such national legislation affords a greater level of consumer protection. — Member States may provide for general prohibition, without taking into account the specific circumstances, only in respect of practices listed in Annex I of the Directive. 1.1. Material scope of application 2010 C-304/08 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft — The Directive has a wide material scope of application, including national legislation aimed at restricting anti-competitive practices that also impact consumers. — The Directive precludes a blanket prohibition on commercial practices under which the participation of consumers in a prize competition or lottery is made conditional on the purchase of goods or the use of services, as such practices are not listed in Annex I of the Directive. 1.1. Material scope of application C-540/08 Mediaprint — Directive precludes a general national ban on sales with bonuses designed to achieve consumer protection as well as other. 1.1. Material scope of application C-522/08 Telekom. Polska — The Directive precludes national legislation that with certain exceptions, and without taking account of the specific circumstances, imposes a general prohibition of combined offers made by a vendor to a consumer. — This is the case even when such national legislation is permissible pursuant to the Framework Directive and the Universal Service Directive. 1.1. Material scope of application 2011 C-122/10 Ving Sverige — For a commercial communication to be capable of being categorised as an invitation to purchase, it is not necessary for it to include an actual opportunity to purchase or for it to appear in proximity to and at the same time as such an opportunity. — Using ‘entry-level prices’ is not contrary to the UCPD, provided that the final price cannot ‘reasonably be calculated in advance’. — Extent of the information relating to the main characteristics of a product which has to be communicated in an invitation to purchase must be assessed on the basis of the context of that invitation, the nature and characteristics of the product and the medium of communication used. 2.9.4. The factual context and limits of the communication medium used 2.9.5. Material information in invitations to purchase – Article 7(4) C-288/10 Wamo — National rules prohibiting price reductions during pre-sales periods not compatible with the Directive in so far as it seeks to protect the economic interests of consumers. 1.1. Material scope of application C-126/11 Inno — National provision does not fall within the scope of the Directive ‘if it aims solely, as argued by the referring court, at regulating relations between competitors and does not aim at protecting consumers. 1.1. Material scope of application 2012 C-428/11 Purely Creative — Point 31 of Annex I prohibits any practice where in order to claim a prize, the consumer is required to pay money or incur any cost. — Such practices are prohibited even if multiple ways of obtaining the prize are available to the customer, some of which are free of charge. — It is irrelevant what the cost of claiming the prize is, as this practice is listed in Annex I, and therefore the Directive’s intention is to avoid difficult assessments of the individual circumstances of each case, as would be the case when comparing the prize value with the cost of claiming the prize by the customer. 3.8. Prizes – No 31 C-559/11 Pelckmans Turnhout — National prohibition to open shops 7 days a week found to only aim to protect the interests of workers and employees in the distribution sector and not intend to protect consumers. 1.1. Material scope of application C-453/10 Pereničová and Perenič — Erroneous information provided in the contract terms is ‘misleading’ within the meaning of the UCPD if it causes, or is likely to cause, the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise. 1.2.4. Interplay with the Unfair Contract Terms Directive 2013 C-206/11 Köck — National law allowing the announcement of a clearance sale only subject to the authorisation of the competent administrative authority considered to be aimed at the protection of consumers, and not solely at the protection of competitors and other operators in the market. 1.1. Material scope of application C-435/11 CHS Tour Services — If a commercial practice satisfies all the criteria in Article 6(1) for being categorised as a misleading practice in relation to the consumer, it is not necessary to determine whether such a practice is also contrary to the requirements of professional diligence as referred to in Article (5)(2)(a). 2.7. Article 5 - professional diligence C-59/12 BKK Mobil Oil — A public law body charged with a task of public interest, such as the management of a statutory health insurance fund, can qualify as a ‘trader’. 2.2. The concept of trader C-265/12 Citroën Belux — MS can lay down a general prohibition on combined offers made to consumers where at least one of the components of those offers is a financial service. 4.4. Financial services and immovable property C-281/12 Trento Sviluppo — Broad interpretation confirmed: ‘transactional decision’ covers not only the decision whether or not to purchase a product, but also decisions directly related to that decision, in particular the decision to enter the shop. 2.4. Transactional decision test C-391/12 RLvS — Where an operator’s commercial practices are put to use by another undertaking, acting in the name or on behalf of that operator, the UCPD could, in certain situations, be relied on against both that operator and the undertaking, if they satisfy the definition of ‘trader’. — The UCPD, in particular point 11 of Annex I, cannot be relied upon against newspaper publishers. The Directive therefore does not preclude the application of a national provision under which those publishers are required to identify specifically, in this case through the use of the term ‘advertisement’, any publication in their periodicals for which they receive remuneration, unless it is already evident from the arrangement and layout of the publication that it is an advertisement. 2.2. The concept of trader 2.3. The concept of commercial practice C-343/12 Euronics — Directive precludes a national provision, which aims at prohibiting sales at loss, only in so far as this provision follows also the aim of protecting consumers. 1.1. Material scope of application 2014 C-421/12 EC vs Kingdom of Belgium — National rules which place a general prohibition on practices not referred to in Annex I, without providing for an individual analysis as to whether the practices are 'unfair' in the light of the criteria laid down in Articles 5 to 9 of that directive, are not permitted under Article 4 thereof and run counter to the complete harmonisation objective pursued by that directive. — Price promotions and total harmonisation character in light of the Price Indication Directive. — Omission by a trader of information which is required by national provisions allowed by the minimum clauses in the existing EU law instruments will not qualify as an omission of material information and thus not constitute a misleading omission under the Directive. 1.2.5. Interplay with the Price Indication Directive C-515/12 ‘4finance’ UAB v Lithanian Finance Ministry — A pyramid promotional scheme constitutes an unfair commercial practice only where such a scheme requires the consumer to give financial consideration, regardless of its amount, for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than from the sale or consumption of products. 3.2. Pyramid schemes – No 14 2015 C-388/13 UPC — Neither the definitions set out in Articles 2(c) and (d), 3(1) and 6(1) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive nor the latter, considered as a whole, contain any indication that the act or omission on the part of the professional must be recurrent or must concern more than one consumer. 2.3. The concept of commercial practice C-13/15 Cdiscount — It is for national authorities and courts to decide whether a national provision is intended to protect consumer interests. 1.1. Material scope of application Joined Cases C-544/13 and C-545/13 Abcur — The application of the UCPD is not excluded even if other EU legislation also applies to a given set of facts. — Even where medicinal products for human use, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, fall within the scope of Directive 2001/83/EC, advertising practices relating to those medicinal products, such as those alleged in the main proceedings, can also fall within the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC provided that the conditions for application of that directive are satisfied. 1.2.1. Relationship with other EU legislation 2016 C-310/15 Sony — The sale of a computer without the option for the consumer to purchase the same model of computer not equipped with pre-installed software does not in itself constitute an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(2) UCPD, unless the practice is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and materially distort or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product. — The failure to indicate the price of each of those items of pre-installed software in the computer does not constitute a misleading commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(4)(a) and Article 7 UCPD. 4.2.11. Consumer lock-in C-476/14 Citroën — In the case of conflict between the UCPD and the other rules of EU law regulating specific aspects of unfair commercial practices, the latter are to prevail and apply to those specific aspects. The Price Indication Directive 98/6/EC prevails as it governs specific aspects that relate to the indication, in offers for sale and in advertising, of the products’ selling price. 1.2.5. Interplay with the Price Indication Directive C-611/14 Canal Digital Danmark — The assessment of a misleading omission in Article 7(1) and (3) must take into account the criteria relating to the context in which that practice takes place, even if not written in the national legislation but only in preparatory works. — Article 7(4) contains an exhaustive list of the material information that must be included in an invitation to purchase. The fact that a trader provides all that information does not preclude that invitation from being regarded as a misleading practice within the meaning of Article 6(1) or Article 7(2). — Where a trader states the price for a subscription so that the consumer must pay both a monthly charge and a 6-monthly charge, that practice must be regarded as a misleading omission under Article 7 if the price of the monthly charge is particularly highlighted in the marketing, whilst the 6-monthly charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner, if such failure causes the consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise. — Where a trader divides the price of a product into several components and highlights one of them, that practice must be regarded as a misleading action under Article 6(1), since that practice would be likely to give the average consumer the false impression that he has been offered a favourable price and cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise. The time constraints that may apply to certain communication media, such as television commercials, cannot be taken into account. 2.8.2. Price advantages 2.9.4. The factual context and limits of the communication medium used 2.9.5. Material information in invitations to purchase – Article 7(4) C-667/15 Loterie Nationale — A commercial practice to be classified as a ‘pyramid promotional scheme’ under Point 14 of Annex I even if there is only an indirect link between the contributions paid by new members of the scheme and the compensation paid to existing members. 3.2. Pyramid schemes – No 14 C-149/15 Wathelet — Intermediary can qualify as ‘seller’ if it has not duly informed the consumer that the seller of goods is a different person and thereby created the impression that it is the seller. The case deals with Directive 1999/44/EC on the Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees but Court’s conclusions are of broader relevance for contractual relations 4.2.2. Intermediation of consumer contracts with third parties 2017 C-562/15 Carrefour — Advertising that compares the prices charged in shops having larger sizes or formats in its retail chain with those displayed in shops having smaller sizes or formats in the retail chains of competitors (e.g. hypermarkets and supermarkets) could be unlawful within the meaning of Article 4(a) and (c) of Directive 2006/114/EC, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) to (3) of the UCPD, unless consumers are informed clearly and in the advertisement itself that the comparison was made between the prices charged in shops in the advertiser’s retail chain having larger sizes or formats and those indicated in the shops of competing retail chains having smaller sizes or format. 1.2.6. Interplay with the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive C-146/16 Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb — The UCPD is applicable to an advertisement made by a platform, showing different products that are not provided by the platform itself but by third party sellers on the platform. — The advertisement must be assessed to verify whether all the material information was provided under Article 7(4), while taking into account the limitations of space and specific circumstances of the case. In the context of advertisements made by online platforms with a large number of sales options offered by various third party sellers, there may be limitations of space within the meaning of Article 7(3) that could justify omitting the geographical address and identity of each trader. Such information must nevertheless be supplied simply and quickly, upon access to the platform. 2.9.5. Material information in invitations to purchase – Article 7(4) 4.2.1. Online platforms and their commercial practices 4.2.6. Influencer marketing C-339/15 Luc Vanderborght — The UCPD does not preclude a national provision, which protects public health and the dignity of the profession of dentist, first, by imposing a general and absolute prohibition of any advertising relating to the provision of oral and dental care services and, secondly, by establishing certain requirements of discretion with regard to signs of dental practices. 1.1. Material scope of application C-357/16 Gelvora — Debt collection practices fall within the material scope of the UCPD. 2.3.1. After-sales practices, including debt collection activities C-295/16 Europamur Alimentacion — National general prohibitions on offering for sale or selling goods at a loss and which lay down grounds of derogation from that prohibition that are based on criteria not appearing in the UCPD, are precluded. 1.1. Material scope of application 2018 C-632/16 Dyson v BSH — The lack of information, which is not required by the sector-specific legislation, on the testing conditions that resulted in the energy classification indicated on the label relating to the energy class of vacuum cleaners does not constitute a misleading omission. 1.2.1. Relationship with other EU legislation C-54/17 and C-55/17 Wind tre, Vodafone — The sale of SIM cards with pre-loaded and pre-activated services without adequately informing the consumers of these services and their costs, could be a prohibited aggressive practice of inertia selling under point 29 of Annex I. — For the purposes of the assessment, it is not relevant whether the use of the services required conscious action by the consumer or whether the consumer could have deactivated the services, since without sufficient information, such action cannot be deemed as exercising free choice in relation to the services. 2.10. Articles 8 and 9 - aggressive commercial practices C-105/17 Kamenova — A person publishing eight sales advertisements for new and second-hand goods on a website is not necessarily a ‘trader’. The classification must take into account different non-exhaustive criteria listed in the case. 2.2. The notion of trader C-109/17 Bankia — Article 11 does not preclude national legislation which prohibits the court hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings from reviewing, of its own motion or at the request of the parties, the validity of the enforceable instrument in light of the existence of unfair commercial practices and, in any event, prohibits the court having jurisdiction to rule on the substance regarding the existence of those practices from adopting any interim measures, such as staying the mortgage enforcement proceedings. — Article 11 does not preclude national legislation which does not confer a legally binding nature on a code of conduct such as those referred to in Article 10. 1.2.4. Interplay with the Unfair Contract Terms Directive 2.8.4. Non-compliance with codes of conduct 2019 C-628/17 Orange Polska — The signing a contract in the presence of a courier cannot be considered in all circumstances as an aggressive practice using undue influence under Articles 8-9. Account must be taken of the conduct of the trader in the specific case, the effect of which is to put pressure on the consumer so that his freedom of choice is significantly impaired, and that makes that consumer feel uncomfortable or confuses his thinking concerning the transactional decision to be taken. — The fact that the consumer was not given the opportunity to read the standard contract terms beforehand is not by itself indicative of an aggressive practice. However, it could be aggressive if combined with the announcement that any delay in signing the contract or amendment would mean that the subsequent conclusion thereof would be possible only under less favourable conditions, or the fact that the consumer would risk having to pay contractual penalties or, in the event of the contract being amended, would risk the trader suspending the service, or if the courier informs the consumer that he could receive an unfavourable assessment from his employer in case of delays or refusals to sign. 2.10. Articles 8 and 9 - aggressive commercial practices C-393/17 Kirschstein — There is a difference between the trader’s practices that are closely linked to the promotion and sale or supply of products to consumers and practices that relate to the product itself (e.g. authorisation of service providers that can issue university degrees). — A national rule which aims to determine the operator who is authorised to provide a service in a commercial transaction, without directly regulating the practices which that operator may subsequently implement to promote or dispose of the sales of that service, cannot be considered to relate to a commercial practice in direct connection with the provision of that service, within the meaning of the UCPD. 2.3. The concept of commercial practice Joined cases C-708/17 and C-725/17 EVN Bulgaria Toplofikatsia — The CRD and UCPD do not preclude a national law that provides that the owners of an apartment in a building in co-ownership connected to a district heating network are required to contribute to the costs of the consumption of thermal energy by the common parts and the internal installation of the building, even though they did not individually request the supply of that thermal energy and they do not use it in their apartment. 1.2.3. Interplay with the Consumer Rights Directive 2020 C-393/19 Mezina — In case of conflict between the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and Directive 2005/29/EC, the provisions of that regulation take precedence and apply to unfair commercial practices in relation to health claims. 1.2.2. Information established by other EU law as ‘material’ information 2021 C-922/19 Waternet — The CRD and UCPD do not regulate the formation of contracts, with the result that it is for the referring court to assess, in accordance with national legislation, whether a contract may be regarded as concluded between a water supply company and a consumer in the absence of the latter’s express consent. — The concept of ‘inertia selling’ in point 29 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC does not cover a commercial practice of a drinking water supply company consisting in maintaining the connection to the public water supply network when a consumer moves into a previously occupied dwelling, since that consumer does not have the choice of the supplier of that service, that supplier charges cost-covering, transparent and non-discriminatory rates that are proportionate to the water consumption, and the consumer knows that that dwelling is connected to the public water supply network and that water is supplied against payment. 1.2.3. Interplay with the Consumer Rights Directive 2.10. Articles 8 and 9 - aggressive commercial practices C-371/20 Peek & Cloppenburg — Point 11 of Annex I must be interpreted as meaning that the promotion of a product by the publication of editorial content is ‘paid for’ by a trader in the case where that trader provides consideration with an asset value for that publication, whether in the form of payment of a sum of money or in any other form, provided that there is a definite link between the payment thus made by that trader and that publication. That will, inter alia, be the case where that trader makes available, free of charge, images protected by copyright on which are visible the commercial premises and products which it offers for sale. 4.2.5. Influencer marketing
Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-07