EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CA0515
Case C-515/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘4finance’ UAB v Valstybinę vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnybą, Valstybinę mokesčių inspekciją prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Pyramid promotional scheme — Whether the consideration paid by consumers in order to receive compensation is relevant — Interpretation of the concept of ‘consideration’ )
Case C-515/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘4finance’ UAB v Valstybinę vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnybą, Valstybinę mokesčių inspekciją prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Pyramid promotional scheme — Whether the consideration paid by consumers in order to receive compensation is relevant — Interpretation of the concept of ‘consideration’ )
Case C-515/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘4finance’ UAB v Valstybinę vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnybą, Valstybinę mokesčių inspekciją prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Pyramid promotional scheme — Whether the consideration paid by consumers in order to receive compensation is relevant — Interpretation of the concept of ‘consideration’ )
OJ C 159, 26.5.2014, p. 7–7
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.5.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 159/7 |
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘4finance’ UAB v Valstybinę vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnybą, Valstybinę mokesčių inspekciją prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-515/12) (1)
((Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Pyramid promotional scheme - Whether the consideration paid by consumers in order to receive compensation is relevant - Interpretation of the concept of ‘consideration’))
2014/C 159/08
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant:‘4finance’ UAB
Defendants: Valstybinę vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnybą, Valstybinę mokesčių inspekciją prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Pyramid promotional scheme enabling a consumer, after giving nominal consideration, to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the entry of other consumers rather than from the sale or consumption of products — Relevance of the amount of the consideration to classification of the scheme as a pyramid promotional scheme — Significance of the extent to which the compensation is financed by consideration from new consumers — Requirement that that compensation be financed entirely or to a large extent by the contributions of the new members
Operative part of the judgment
Annex I, point 14, of 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 a pyramid promotional scheme constitutes an unfair commercial practice only where such a scheme requires the consumer to give financial consideration, regardless of its amount, for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than from the sale or consumption of products.