CELEX: 62011CA0428
Language: en
Date: 2012-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-428/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Purely Creative Ltd, Strike Lucky Games Ltd, Winners Club Ltd, McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Ltd, Dodd Marketing Ltd, Adrian Williams, Wendy Ruck, Catherine Cummings, Peter Henry v Office of Fair Trading (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Practice of informing the consumer that he has won a prize and obliging him, in order to receive that prize, to incur a cost of whatever kind)

8.12.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 379/11
            
         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Purely Creative Ltd, Strike Lucky Games Ltd, Winners Club Ltd, McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Ltd, Dodd Marketing Ltd, Adrian Williams, Wendy Ruck, Catherine Cummings, Peter Henry v Office of Fair Trading
   (Case C-428/11) (1)
   
   (Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Practice of informing the consumer that he has won a prize and obliging him, in order to receive that prize, to incur a cost of whatever kind)
   2012/C 379/18
   Language of the case: English
   
      Referring court
   
   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Purely Creative Ltd, Strike Lucky Games Ltd, Winners Club Ltd, McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Ltd, Dodd Marketing Ltd, Adrian Williams, Wendy Ruck, Catherine Cummings, Peter Henry
   
      Defendant: Office of Fair Trading
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Annex I, paragraph 31, to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-business 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 (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair — Practice whereby a consumer is informed that he has won a prize and various methods of claiming it are suggested to him that require him to incur a cost, which varies according to the method chosen
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Paragraph 31, second indent, 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 (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as prohibiting aggressive practices by which traders, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, give the false impression that the consumer has already won a prize, while the taking of any action in relation to claiming that prize, be it requesting information concerning the nature of that prize or taking possession of it, is subject to an obligation on the consumer to pay money or to incur any cost whatsoever;
   It is irrelevant that the cost imposed on the consumer, such as the cost of a stamp, is de minimis compared with the value of the prize or that it does not procure the trader any benefit;
   It is also irrelevant that the trader offers the consumer a number of methods by which he may claim the prize, at least one of which is free of charge, if, according to one or more of the proposed methods, the consumer would incur a cost in order to obtain information on the prize or how to acquire it;
   It is for the national courts to assess the information provided to consumers in the light of recitals 18 and 19 in the preamble to Directive 2005/29 and Article 5(2)(b) thereof, that is to say, by taking into account whether that information is clear and can be understood by the public targeted by the practice.
   
      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.