“Köck”

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Feb 2014

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (“Unfair Commercial Practices Directive”) must be interpreted as precluding a national court from ordering the cessation of a commercial practice not covered by Annex I to that directive on the sole ground that the practice has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the competent administrative authority, without itself carrying out an assessment of the unfairness of the practice in question against the criteria set out in Articles 5 to 9 of that directive.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40319-014-0170-6.pdf

“Köck”

0 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition , Munich 2014 Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/ EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (''Unfair Commercial Practices Directive'') must be interpreted as precluding a national court from ordering the cessation of a commercial practice not covered by Annex I to that directive on the sole ground that the practice has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the competent administrative authority, without itself carrying out an assessment of the unfairness of the practice in question against the criteria set out in Articles 5 to 9 of that directive.


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40319-014-0170-6.pdf

Decision of the European Court of Justice (First Chamber) 17 January 2013 – Case No. C-206/11. “Köck”, IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2014, 244-244, DOI: 10.1007/s40319-014-0170-6