Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2013:868
Date: 2013-12-19
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Lithuania

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 3 April 2014 Approximation of laws — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices — Directive 2005/29 — Unfair commercial practice — Concept — Pyramid promotional scheme — Included — Condition — Discrepancies between language versions (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 meaning that 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. To classify a scheme as a ‘pyramid promotional scheme’, point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29 requires the members of such a scheme to give financial consideration, but does not provide for any minimum amount of such contribution. Furthermore, the objective of providing greater legal certainty in the identification of unfair commercial practices, referred to in recital 17 in the preamble to that directive, would not be ensured if the Member States could decide what amounts are to be regarded as financial consideration. Moreover, the classification as a ‘pyramid promotional scheme’ within the meaning of point 14 of Annex I requires the existence of a link between the consideration given and the compensation that may be received. It follows from the wording of point 14 of Annex I that the compensation which a consumer may receive must depend primarily on the consideration given. A practice not covered by the abovementioned Annex I may nevertheless be prohibited after a case-by-case assessment in accordance with the criteria laid down in Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 2005/29. (see paras 23, 26-28, 31, 34, operative part)