CELEX: 62013CA0388
Language: en
Date: 2015-04-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-388/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Proceedings brought by Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Erroneous information provided by a telecommunications undertaking to one of its subscribers which resulted in additional costs for the latter — Classification as a ‘misleading commercial practice’)

15.6.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 198/3
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Proceedings brought by Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság
   (Case C-388/13) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Erroneous information provided by a telecommunications undertaking to one of its subscribers which resulted in additional costs for the latter - Classification as a ‘misleading commercial practice’))
   (2015/C 198/04)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Kúria
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság
   
      Defendant: UPC Magyarország Kft.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               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 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that the communication, by a professional to a consumer, of erroneous information, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified as a ‘misleading commercial practice’, within the meaning of that directive, even though that information concerned only one single consumer;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as meaning that, if a commercial practice meets all of the criteria specified in Article 6(1) of that directive for classification as a misleading practice in relation to the consumer, it is not necessary further to determine whether such a practice is also contrary to the requirements of professional diligence, as referred to in Article 5(2)(a) of that directive, in order for it legitimately to be regarded as unfair and, consequently, prohibited in accordance with Article 5(1) of that directive.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.