Brussels, 18/10/2012 (Agence Europe) - The directive on unfair trade practices to consumers (2005/29/EC) prohibits aggressive practices which give a “false impression” to the consumer that he has already won a prize, while he has to incur a certain cost in order to receive it. These practices are prohibited even if the cost imposed on the consumer is minimal compared with the value of the prize (for example the cost of a postage stamp) or even if it does not procure any advantage for the trader and even if a number of methods are offered to the consumer in order to obtain the prize and even if one of those methods is free of charge.
By way of decision this on 18 October in Case C-428/11, the European Court of Justice gave its response to questions referred to it from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (United Kingdom) requesting that it interpret these points in the above-mentioned directive. The proceedings in the present case are between five British undertakings specialised in the distribution of mailings, which the Office of Fair Trading (responsible in the United Kingdom for enforcing consumer protection laws) called upon to stop their practices in the form of the sending of individually addressed letters, scratch-cards and other advertising inserts placed into newspapers and magazines, by which the consumer was informed that he had won a prize or equivalent benefit, the value of which could be either considerable or merely symbolic. The consumer was offered a number of options in order to discover his prize and obtain a claim number: he could call a premium rate telephone number, use a text messaging service or obtain the information by ordinary post. The OFT pointed out those certain promotions proposed cruises in the Mediterranean. In order to receive that prize, the consumer had to pay inter alia the insurance, a supplement to obtain a one-bed or two-bed cabin and, during the voyage, the cost of food and drink, plus the port fees. Thus, two couples would have had to pay £399 per person in order to participate in that cruise. The British Court of Appeal therefore asked whether these aggressive practices breached the directive, insofar as they gave a “false impression” to the consumer that they had won a prize when in fact they had to bear a certain cost to receive it. It also wants to know how it could decide whether this “false impression” had been given. (FG/trans/fl)