1. Art. 7 Abs. 1 and 3 Directive 2005/29 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11. More 2005 on unfair commercial practices of businesses towards consumers in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450 / EEC, Directives 97/7 / EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EG) No.. 2006/2004 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (Directive on unfair commercial practices) must be interpreted as, in order to assess, whether a commercial practice is to be regarded as a misleading omission, the relationship, in dem diese Geschäftspraxis steht – u. a. the limitations of the communication medium used for this practice, the due this communication medium spatial or temporal limitations and any measures, the trader has taken, um den Verbrauchern die Information anderweitig zur Verfügung zu stellen –, is also to be considered, if such a requirement can not be expressly inferred from the wording of the legislation concerned.
2. Art. 6 Abs. 1 Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as, that a practice, which consists in, divide the price into several components and highlight one of them, is classified as misleading, if it is capable of, to convey to the average consumer the false impression, that is offered to him a favorable price, and to entice him, take a transactional decision, he would not have taken otherwise, which is for the referring court to consider taking into account all relevant circumstances of the main proceedings. The time constraints, where certain communication media such as television commercials may be subject to, dürfen bei der Beurteilung des irreführenden Charakters am Maßstab von Art. 6 Abs. 1 dieser Richtlinie allerdings nicht berücksichtigt werden.
3. Art. 7 Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as, that in cases, where a trader has chosen, the price for a subscription to assemble so, that the consumer has to pay both a monthly fee as well as a half-yearly fee, this practice is to be regarded as a misleading omission, if the monthly fee in the advertisement is highlighted, but quite deprived of the semi-annual fee or shown only on a less conspicuous way,, insofar as such an omission is causing the consumer to take a transactional decision or is likely to cause, he would not have taken otherwise, what the national court, taking into account the limitations of the communication medium used, the nature and characteristics of the product and the other measures, the trader has actually taken, order to provide consumers with the essential information on the product is available, must be checked.
4. Art. 7 Abs. 4 Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as, that it contains an exhaustive list of essential information, which must be mentioned in an invitation to purchase. The assessment, whether the particular trader has information requirement, taking into account the nature and characteristics of the product, but also of the communication medium used for the invitation to purchase and the additional information provided, where appropriate, by the trader has sufficient, for the national court. Der Umstand, dass ein Gewerbetreibender in einer Aufforderung zum Kauf alle in Art. 7 Abs. 4 dieser Richtlinie aufgezählten Informationen bereitstellt, does not preclude, dass diese Geschäftspraxis als irreführend im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 oder Art. 7 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie eingestuft werden kann.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth chamber) 26. October 2016
„Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung – Unlautere Geschäftspraktiken –Richtlinie 2005/29/EG – Art. 6 and 7 - Advertisement for a television subscription via Satellite - Subscription Price, in addition to the monthly fee a semi-annual contribution for the card required for decoding the program includes - monthly fee, which is not specified or less prominent than the semi-annual fee - Misleading action - Misleading omission - implementation of the provision of a directive only in the materials of a national implementing law and not in the legislative text itself "
In Case C-611/14
betreffend ein Vorabentscheidungsersuchen nach Art. 267 AEUV, eingereicht vom Court of Glostrup (Gericht Glostrup, Denmark) by decision of 1. December 2014, referred to the Court 23. December 2014, in the criminal proceedings against
Canal Digital Denmark A / S
he let Continue reading “TV advertising can satisfy by reference to the website information obligations”