Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:958
Date: 2016-12-15
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 15 December 2016 Approximation of laws — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices — Directive 2005/29 — Misleading commercial practice — Definition — Pyramid promotional scheme — Included — No requirement for a direct financial link between the contributions paid by new members and the compensation paid to existing members (European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29, Annex I, point 14) Point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market must be interpreted as allowing a commercial practice to be classified as a ‘pyramid promotional scheme’ 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. It cannot be deduced from the wording of point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29 that the required financial link must necessarily be direct. What matters is the description ‘primarily’ or ‘mostly’ applicable to the contributions paid by new participants in the scheme. Moreover, a contrary interpretation of that provision could deprive it of effectiveness, since the requirement of a direct link would make it possible easily to evade the absolute prohibition of pyramid promotional schemes. In any event, a scheme appears to meet the conditions for classifying it as a ‘commercial practice’ within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2005/29 where its aim is to generate a profit for itself, that is, for the promoters of the scheme, and not only for the players. It is for the referring court to satisfy itself of this. (see paras 30, 31, 33, 34, operative part)