This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0611
Case C-611/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Anklagemyndigheden v Canal Digital Danmark A/S
Case C-611/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Anklagemyndigheden v Canal Digital Danmark A/S
Case C-611/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Anklagemyndigheden v Canal Digital Danmark A/S
IO C 73, 2.3.2015, p. 18–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
2.3.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 73/18 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Anklagemyndigheden v Canal Digital Danmark A/S
(Case C-611/14)
(2015/C 073/25)
Language of the case: Danish
Referring court
Retten i Glostrup
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Anklagemyndigheden
Defendant: Canal Digital Danmark A/S
Questions referred
1. |
Is Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, etc. (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) to be interpreted as precluding a national scheme such as that provided for in Paragraph 3 of the Danish Markedsføringsloven, which prohibits misleading marketing practices, including in connection with invitations to purchase, but which neither in Paragraph 3 or elsewhere in the law refers to the limitations arising as a result of Article 7(1) of the Directive, under which account is to be taken of whether a marketing practice omits material information, that the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision, and as a result of Article 7(3), under which account should be taken of the fact that the communications medium used imposes limitations of time and space? |
2. |
Is Article 6 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to be interpreted as meaning that — in situations where a trader has opted to state a total price for an ongoing subscription so that the consumer must pay both an ongoing monthly charge and an ongoing six-monthly charge — it will be considered a misleading practice if the monthly price is particularly highlighted in the marketing practice, whilst the six-month charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner? |
3. |
Is Article 7 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that — in situations where a trader has opted to state a total price for an ongoing subscription so that the consumer must pay both an ongoing monthly charge and an ongoing six-monthly charge — it will be considered a misleading omission under Article 7 of the Directive if the monthly price is particularly highlighted in the marketing practice, whilst the six-month charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner? |
4. |
In the assessment of whether a marketing practice is misleading in a situation such as that described in questions 2 and 3, is account to be taken of whether the abovementioned marketing practice:
|
5. |
Does it have any bearing on the answers to questions 2 and 3 if the marketing takes place in a television advertisement? |
6. |
Does Article 7(4) of the Directive contain an exhaustive enumeration of what information is material for an invitation to purchase? |
7. |
If question 6 is answered in the affirmative, does Article 7(4) of the Directive rule out the possibility that an invitation to purchase — which states the total price the consumer will have to pay for the first year of the subscription’s contract period (commitment period) — can be regarded as a misleading marketing practice under Article 7(1) and (2) or Article 6 of the Directive if, for example, further information is given about certain — but not all — components of the product’s price? |