Suchergebnisse

This article examines the first five years of the ECJ case law on the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. In its rather short history the UCPD has led to a flood of European case law. The Court repeatedly stressed the Directive's full harmonization character and the ensuing bar on more stringent national legislation (mostly in the field of sales promotions). The Court has also clarified some of the novel concepts introduced by the Directive, as well as its personal scope of application. Divergences between Member States remain, as the application in concreto of the Directive's general clauses (prohibition of conduct contrary to professional diligence, misleading and aggressive practices) is reserved to national courts.

Abstract
Summary
The article investigates the connection between the unfair commercial practices and the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) from the perspective of consumer law. With the use of descriptive analysis and normative argument, it provides examples of unfair commercial practices by large enterprises within the travel sector and explains how they breach the EU legal regulation. The article concludes that the concept of CSR covers actions which go above the basic legal regulation and since the practices performed by the enterprises within the travel sector discussed in the article breach several legal regulations, they may not be presented as CSR activities.

The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) seeks to regulate the fairness of business-to-consumer trading practices through reference to a "high level of consumer protection." As in Lithuania there was no special national legislation, prohibiting unfair commercial practices, infringing economic interests of consumers, an absolutely new regime was brought by the UCPD into the national legal system. The aim of this article is to critically examine the implementation of the UCPD in the Republic of Lithuania, together with highlighting its principal application problems. In order to understand how the UCPD "landed" into the national legal system, in the first part of the article a short overview of regulation available before the transposition of the Directive is provided. The second part of the article deals with analysis of national rules, transposing UCPD. In the third part of the article, relevant case law is analyzed. In conclusion the author notes that Lithuania is not an exception and like other member states faced difficulties when transposing UCPD into the national legal system. Although the growing number of national case law in this field is the best evidence that UCPD and the implementing act are striking developments, influencing the national consumer law, however, the way from core application uncertainties still needs to be found. ; Nesąžiningos komercinės veiklos direktyva (toliau ir – Direktyva) siekiama reglamentuoti komercinės veiklos vartotojų atžvilgiu sąžiningumą, kartu prisidedant prie aukšto lygio vartotojų apsaugos užtikrinimo. Kadangi Lietuvoje specialaus teisinio reguliavimo, įtvirtinančio nesąžiningos komercinės veiklos, pažeidžiančios vartotojų ekonominius interesus, draudimą, nebuvo, priėmus Nesąžiningos komercinės veiklos direktyvą, naujas teisinis reguliavimas turėjo būti perkeltas į nacionalinę teisinę sistemą. Šio straipsnio tikslas – kritiškai išanalizuoti, kaip Nesąžiningos komercinės veiklos direktyva buvo įgyvendinta Lietuvoje, kartu išryškinant pagrindines jos nuostatų taikymo praktikoje problemas. Siekiant suprasti, kaip Nesąžiningos komercinės veiklos direktyva "įsiliejo" į nacionalinę teisinę sistemą, pirmoje straipsnio dalyje apžvelgiamas nacionalinis teisinis reglamentavimas, buvęs iki direktyvos priėmimo. Straipsnio antroji dalis skirta nacionalinio teisės akto, perkeliančio Direktyvos nuostatas, analizei. Trečiojoje straipsnio dalyje analizuojama aktuali nesąžiningos komercinės veiklos draudimo taisyklių taikymo praktika. Apibendrinant pažymima, kad Lietuva nėra išimtis ir kaip didžioji dauguma kitų valstybių narių susidūrė su Direktyvos perkėlimo į nacionalinę teisinę sistemą sunkumais. Ir nors vis didėjanti nacionalinė praktika minėtoje srityje byloja, kad tiek Direktyva, tiek ir ją perkeliančiu įstatymu įgyvendinti ryškūs pokyčiai, pozityviai veikiantys nacionalinę vartotojų teisę, į daugelį klausimų, kylančių taikant šiuos teisinius instrumentus, vis dar lieka neatsakyta.

The free movement of goods promotes cross-border transactions. Computerization of services and intensified use of the Internet also contribute to the development of trade within the EU. Problems that could once be addressed almost exclusively or at least prevailingly at a national level currently assume cross-border character. This is also true in the case of regulation of unfair competition and unfair commercial practices. Whereas the substantive regulation of unfair competition in both EU and domestic law is quite common in scientific literature, its aspects in private international law are often neglected. Since the EU law has to a large extent replaced national conflict-of-law and procedural rules with unified EU provisions, this article focuses on the EU regulations Rome II and Brussels I bis with the emphasis put on the latter. The aim of this article is to review the rules determining jurisdiction (and the applicable law) on the basis of legal doctrine, current legislation and case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Attention also will be paid to both off-line and on-line situations, as well as to the specifics of consumer protection in the context of unfair competition and unfair commercial practices.

The free movement of goods promotes cross-border transactions. Computerization of services and intensified use of the Internet also contribute to the development of trade within the EU. Problems that could once be addressed almost exclusively or at least prevailingly at a national level currently assume cross-border character. This is also true in the case of regulation of unfair competition and unfair commercial practices. Whereas the substantive regulation of unfair competition in both EU and domestic law is quite common in scientific literature, its aspects in private international law are often neglected. Since the EU law has to a large extent replaced national conflict-of-law and procedural rules with unified EU provisions, this article focuses on the EU regulations Rome II and Brussels I bis with the emphasis put on the latter. The aim of this article is to review the rules determining jurisdiction (and the applicable law) on the basis of legal doctrine, current legislation and case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Attention also will be paid to both off-line and on-line situations, as well as to the specifics of consumer protection in the context of unfair competition and unfair commercial practices ; The free movement of goods promotes cross-border transactions. Computerization of services and intensified use of the Internet also contribute to the development of trade within the EU. Problems that could once be addressed almost exclusively or at least prevailingly at a national level currently assume cross-border character. This is also true in the case of regulation of unfair competition and unfair commercial practices. Whereas the substantive regulation of unfair competition in both EU and domestic law is quite common in scientific literature, its aspects in private international law are often neglected. Since the EU law has to a large extent replaced national conflict-of-law and procedural rules with unified EU provisions, this article focuses on the EU regulations Rome II and Brussels I bis with the emphasis put on the latter. The aim of this article is to review the rules determining jurisdiction (and the applicable law) on the basis of legal doctrine, current legislation and case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Attention also will be paid to both off-line and on-line situations, as well as to the specifics of consumer protection in the context of unfair competition and unfair commercial practices