CELEX: 62012CN0515
Language: en
Date: 2012-11-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-515/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 November 2012 — 4finance UAB v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba, Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

26.1.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 26/33
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 November 2012 — 4finance UAB v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba, Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-515/12)
   2013/C 26/62
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   
      Referring court
   
   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Claimant: 4finance UAB
   
      Defendants: Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba, Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices 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 (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) be interpreted as meaning that establishing, operating or promoting a pyramid promotional scheme is to be regarded as a commercial practice that is in all cases misleading only where the consumer has to pay in order to receive compensation primarily for the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than for the sale or consumption of products?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If it is necessary for the consumer to pay for the right to receive compensation, is the amount of the payment made by the consumer for the opportunity to receive compensation primarily for the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than for the sale or consumption of products relevant for the purpose of recognition of the pyramid promotional scheme as a misleading commercial practice under point 14 of Annex I to the directive? May payments by consumers which are of a purely nominal amount and which are made in order for the consumers to be identified be regarded as payments for the opportunity to receive compensation for the purpose of point 14 of Annex I to the directive?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Must point 14 of Annex I to the directive be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a pyramid promotional scheme to be recognised as a misleading commercial practice under that point, it matters only that the compensation is paid to the consumer already in the scheme primarily because he has introduced other consumers into the scheme rather than for the sale or consumption of products, or is the extent to which the compensation paid to participants in the scheme for the introduction of new consumers is financed by contributions of the new members nevertheless also of importance? In the case under consideration, must the compensation paid to the participants in the pyramid promotional scheme who joined it earlier be financed entirely or to a large extent by the contributions of the members who are fresh entrants into the scheme?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.