Canal Digital Danmark (Judgment) [2016] EUECJ C-611/14 (26 October 2016)

Canal Digital Danmark (Judgment) [2016] EUECJ C-611/14 (26 October 2016)

National courts must interpret domestic law in conformity with Directive 2005/29/EC, considering the context and communication medium when assessing misleading omissions. Highlighting one price component and omitting or downplaying another can be misleading if it gives the average consumer a false impression of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EUECJ C-611/14
Parties
Defendant: Canal Digital Danmark A/S
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
26 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Preliminary Ruling (reference for Interpretation of EU Law)
Outcome
Preliminary ruling issued; interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC provided to national court.
Legal Topics
Unfair Commercial Practices, Misleading Advertising, Consumer Information Requirements
European Union Law Consumer Protection Law Unfair Commercial Practices Misleading Advertising Consumer Information Requirements

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canal Digital Danmark A/S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings / Preliminary Ruling (reference for Interpretation of EU Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether national law must expressly refer to context and communication medium limitations when assessing misleading omissions under Directive 2005/29/EC Articles 6 and 7
  2. 2 Whether highlighting one price component and omitting or downplaying another constitutes a misleading commercial practice
  3. 3 Whether Article 7(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC provides an exhaustive list of material information for invitations to purchase

Ratio Decidendi

National courts must interpret domestic law in conformity with Directive 2005/29/EC, considering the context and communication medium when assessing misleading omissions. Highlighting one price component and omitting or downplaying another can be misleading if it gives the average consumer a false impression of the total price and influences their transactional decision. Article 7(4) provides an exhaustive list of material information for invitations to purchase, but compliance does not preclude a finding of misleading practice under other provisions.

Court Disposition

Preliminary ruling issued; interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC provided to national court.

Orders

  • Article 7(1) and (3) of Directive 2005/29/EC require consideration of context and communication medium limitations for misleading omissions, even if not expressly stated in national law.
  • Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC: Dividing price into components and highlighting one while omitting or downplaying another is misleading if it gives a false impression and affects the consumer's decision; time constraints of media are not relevant under Article 6(1).