Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/18

(Case C-611/14)

(2015/C 073/25)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

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:

a)states the total price for the subscription in the commitment period, including the six-month charge, and/or is done through advertisements or publicity on the Internet, where reference is made to the trader’s website, where the six-month charge and/or the total price for the subscription, including the six-month charge, is stated?

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?

(1) OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.