Consumer protection, consumer rights. Since 1952 the Court of Justice of the EU ensures the harmonization of the law of the Member States. In this brief introductory guide the most relevant judgments on the subject of consumer rights.
Schermata 2021 06 03 alle 17.45.20

Since 1952, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ensured that European Union law is respected and correctly applied.

In 2017, the Court held that the Commission had legitimately rejected the use of certain health claims for the marketing of glucose such as, in particular, “glucose contributes to the normal functioning of energy metabolism” or “glucose supports physical activity”. Such claims in fact encourage sugar consumption, while such encouragement 

The joint offer consisting in the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed computer programs does not in itself constitute an unfair commercial practice. Moreover, the failure to disclose the price of each of the pre-installed computer programs does not constitute a deceptive trade practice because the price of the various programs does not constitute material consumer information.

In the field of insurance; aggressive practices of professionals that give the consumer the false impression of having already won a prize, when in fact he has to bear a certain cost to receive it, are prohibited. In particular, this is what happens in the case of advertisements that make the recipient believe that he has won a cruise when in fact, in order to receive the prize, he must pay insurance, a supplement for the cabin and must also bear the cost of food and beverages, as well as port taxes during the trip.

The cost of a call to an after-sales service telephone number must not exceed the cost of a standard call, otherwise it would be an unfair trade practice.

The advent of the digital age has been an opportunity for the Court to clarify the obligations and rights of the contractual parties; the consumer who exercises his right of withdrawal is not required to pay compensation to the seller for the use of the goods, unless he has made unreasonable use of them. The effectiveness of the right of withdrawal would be called into question if the consumer had to pay an indemnity for the mere fact of having examined and tested the goods purchased by mail.

Particularly important are then the contracts concluded at home, the unfair terms that appear in a contract concluded with a professional. The judge must ex officio examine the unfairness of a contractual clause, not allowing him to reformulate the content of the clause, but only to exclude its application.