CELEX: 62014CN0611
Language: en
Date: 2014-12-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-611/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Anklagemyndigheden v Canal Digital Danmark A/S

2.3.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 73/18
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Anklagemyndigheden v Canal Digital Danmark A/S
      (Case C-611/14)
      (2015/C 073/25)
      Language of the case: Danish
      
         Referring court
      
      Retten i Glostrup
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Anklagemyndigheden
      
         Defendant: Canal Digital Danmark A/S
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Is Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, etc. (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) to be interpreted as precluding a national scheme such as that provided for in Paragraph 3 of the Danish Markedsføringsloven, which prohibits misleading marketing practices, including in connection with invitations to purchase, but which neither in Paragraph 3 or elsewhere in the law refers to the limitations arising as a result of Article 7(1) of the Directive, under which account is to be taken of whether a marketing practice omits material information, that the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision, and as a result of Article 7(3), under which account should be taken of the fact that the communications medium used imposes limitations of time and space?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Is Article 6 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to be interpreted as meaning that — in situations where a trader has opted to state a total price for an ongoing subscription so that the consumer must pay both an ongoing monthly charge and an ongoing six-monthly charge — it will be considered a misleading practice if the monthly price is particularly highlighted in the marketing practice, whilst the six-month charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Is Article 7 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that — in situations where a trader has opted to state a total price for an ongoing subscription so that the consumer must pay both an ongoing monthly charge and an ongoing six-monthly charge — it will be considered a misleading omission under Article 7 of the Directive if the monthly price is particularly highlighted in the marketing practice, whilst the six-month charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner?
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  In the assessment of whether a marketing practice is misleading in a situation such as that described in questions 2 and 3, is account to be taken of whether the abovementioned marketing practice:
                  
                              a)
                           
                           
                              states the total price for the subscription in the commitment period, including the six-month charge,
                              and/or
                           
                        
                              b)
                           
                           
                              is done through advertisements or publicity on the Internet, where reference is made to the trader’s website, where the six-month charge and/or the total price for the subscription, including the six-month charge, is stated?
                           
                        
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Does it have any bearing on the answers to questions 2 and 3 if the marketing takes place in a television advertisement?
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Does Article 7(4) of the Directive contain an exhaustive enumeration of what information is material for an invitation to purchase?
               
            
                  7.
               
               
                  If question 6 is answered in the affirmative, does Article 7(4) of the Directive rule out the possibility that an invitation to purchase — which states the total price the consumer will have to pay for the first year of the subscription’s contract period (commitment period) — can be regarded as a misleading marketing practice under Article 7(1) and (2) or Article 6 of the Directive if, for example, further information is given about certain — but not all — components of the product’s price?
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.