Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Harmonised Protection of Consumer Behaviour: The Holistic Comparative Message About Its Effectiveness and Efficiency from Legislative and Judicial Perspectives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Perspectives on Consumer Behaviour

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

  • 2297 Accesses

Abstract

The keystone of European consumer protection, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), was enacted to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market and to achieve a high level of consumer protection by approximating the laws of EU member states. The EU, via the UCPD, explicitly banishes unfair commercial practices which could potentially harm consumers and implicitly protects certain types of consumer behaviour. Evidence from over 10 years of the application of this harmonised regime allows one to holistically explore the targeted actions and omissions and the impact of the UCPD on commercial practices and consumer behaviour in the EU. The purpose of this study is to explore the UCPD legislative and judiciary perspectives vis-à-vis consumer behaviour and protection. It is founded upon the comparative mapping of (1) the UCPD and (2) case law generated by its ultimate judiciary authority, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJ EU). The information yielded is assessed by focusing on whether the UCPD regime (3) effectively and (4) efficiently protects consumer behaviour. This generates a message about consumer behaviour genuinely or allegedly boosted by the (semi-)harmonised legislation and case law, and indicates both positive and negative viewpoints. The study culminates in conclusions and proposed improvements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Balcerzak, A. (2015). Europe 2020 strategy and structural diversity between old and new member states. Application of zero unitarization method for dynamic analysis in the years 2004–2013. Economics & Sociology, 8(2), 190–210. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2015/8-2/14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burley, A.-M., & Mattli, W. (1993). Europe before the court: A political theory of legal integration. International Organization, 47(1), 41–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300004707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chirita, A. D. (2014). A legal-historical review of the EU competition rules. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 63(2), 281–316. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2230429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (2010). Harmonisation by example: European law against unfair commercial practices. Modern Law Review, 73(1), 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00785.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dědková, J. (2012). Trademarks for quality, for origin, and their significance for customers on the Czech-German borderland. ACC Journal – Issue B, 18(2), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durovic, M. (2016). European law on unfair commercial practices and contract law. Oregon: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission.Com. (2013a). 138 final. Communication from the Commission On the application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive – Achieving a high level of consumer protection Building trust in Internal Market, Brussels, 14.3.2013 (“Communication”).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission.Com. (2013b). 139 final. Report from the Commission First Report on the application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Brussels, 14.3.2013. (“Report”).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. Com. (2010). 2020 Communication from the Commission EUROPE 2020 a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth of 3 March 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission.Com. (2016). 163 Guidance on the implementation/application of UCPD, Brussels 25.5.2016 (“New Guidance”).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gongol, T. (2013). The preliminary ruling decision in the case of Google vs. Louis Vuitton concerning the adword service and its impact on the community law. Amfiteatru Economic, 15(33), 246–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning-Bodewig, F. (2006). Unfair competition law European Union and member states. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J., & Webb, J. (2016). Learning legal rules (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lianos, I. (2010). Shifting narratives in the European internal market: Efficient restrictions of trade and the nature of “economic” integration. European Business Law Review, 21(5), 705–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, D. E. (2013). Resolving trademark duality in the twenty-first century: Making trademarks internet-ready. 1. Acta MUP: Legal Protection of Intellectual Property, 4(1), 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loos, M. B. M. (2010). Full harmonisation as a regulatory concept and its consequences for the national legal orders: The example of the consumer rights directive. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1639436

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2013). European integration and top level domain in 2013. The Lawyer Quarterly, 4, 311–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2015). Co mohou o základních zásadách občanského zákoníku naznačovat dva judikáty o průmyslovém vlastnictví? Rekodifikace & Praxe, III(11), 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2017a). European myriad of approaches to parasitic commercial practices. Oeconomia Copernicana, 8(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.v8i2.11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2017b). Constantine’s Christianity for the (Dis)integrated EU - déjà vu of Constantine’s Roman governance reflecting of the mistrial of Jesus for EU? Dialogos, 4(1), 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2018a). European drive for fair competition – nature and impact of the harmonized protection against unfair commercial practices. Ostrava: Key Publishing and Praha: MUP Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2018b). Fostering innovation – A myth or reality of the EU in 2018. In: Staníčková, M., Melecký, L., Kovářová, E., Dvoroková, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international conference on European integration (pp. 965–973), May 17–18, Ostrava 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2019a). Corporate social responsibility information in annual reports in the EU – Czech case study. Sustainability, 11, 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010237

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2019b). Harmonization of the protection against misleading commercial practices: Ongoing divergences in Central European countries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 10(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2019.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2019c). R&D expenditure and innovation in the EU and selected member states. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 15(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.7341/20191511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R., & Beneš, M. (2017). Does the full harmonization of the consumers’ protection against unfair commercial practices via UCPD fit in Europe 2020? Czech Yearbook of Public & Private International Law CYIL, 8, 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R., Beneš, M., & MacGregor, R. (2016). European (mis)reconciliation of rules against misleading commercial practices – The last decade’s crusade of the Commission and CJ EU. In: Majerová, I., Kotlánová, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th international conference “Economic policy in the European Union Member Countries” (pp. 389–398). Karvina.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R., & Císařová, J. (2014). An overview of the concept of good morals in Czech codices. AA Law Forum, 14, 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R., Císařová, J., & Beneš, M. (2017). The misleading perception of the purpose of the protection against misleading advertising by the EU law and its impact in the Czech Republic. The Lawyer Quarterly, 7(3), 145–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor Pelikánová, R., & MacGregor, R. (2015). General doctrines and principles of EU law and their impact on domain names. AA Law Forum, 6, 29–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Málovics, É. (2013). Appearance of entrepreneurial values and strategic orientations in the basic values. International Journal of Business and Management, III(1), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margoni, T. (2016). The protection of sports event in the EU: Property, intellectual property, unfair competition and special forms of protection. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 47(4), 386–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319016-0475-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melecký, L. & Staníčková, M. (2019), How to evaluate the efficiency of projects in the context of business performance? Review of possible approaches and choice of relevant method. In: SMSIS 2019 – Proceedings of the 13th international conference on strategic management and its support by information systems (pp. 196–203). Ostrava: VŠB-TUO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munir, K. A. (2011). Financial crisis 2008–2009: What does the silence of institutional theorists tell us? Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(2), 114–117. ISSN 1056-4926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, C. W. (2016). The law of passing off – Goodwill beyond goods. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 47(7), 817–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0510-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osuji, O. K. (2011). Business-to-consumer harassment, unfair commercial practices directive and the UK – A distorted picture of uniform harmonisation? Journal of Consumer Policy, 34(4), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9175-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakšiová, R., & Lovciová, K. (2019). Slovakia – Food companies reporting of corporate social responsibility in the Slovak Republic. European Food and Feed Law Review, 14(3), 281–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seville, C. (2011). Intellectual property. The International Comparative Law Quarterly, 60(4), 1039–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šmejkal, V. (2016). Social or highly competitive Europe? EU law solution to conflict of social security and competition law. The Lawyer Quarterly, 1, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2673665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sroka, W., & Szanto, R. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and business ethics in controversial sectors: Analysis of research results. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 14(3), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.7341/20181435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuyck, J. (2011). Réflexions sur une meilleure intégration du droit de la concurrence et du droit des pratiques commerciales déloyales. Revue internationale de droit économique, 4, 455–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thünken, A. (2002). Multi-state advertising over the internet and the private international law of unfair competition. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 51(4), 909–942. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/51.4.909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trzaskowski, J. (2011). Behavioural economics, neuroscience, and the unfair commercial practises directive. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9169-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for support with respect to this publication, which was provided via the Metropolitan University Prague research project no. 68-03 “Public Administration, Law Disciplines and Industrial Property” (2019) financed by means of support for the long-term and conceptual development of the research organisation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Metropolitan University Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Radka Mac Gregor Pelikánová

Authors
  1. Radka Mac Gregor Pelikánová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Radka Mac Gregor Pelikánová .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. WSB University, Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland

    Włodzimierz Sroka

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pelikánová, R.M.G. (2020). Harmonised Protection of Consumer Behaviour: The Holistic Comparative Message About Its Effectiveness and Efficiency from Legislative and Judicial Perspectives. In: Sroka, W. (eds) Perspectives on Consumer Behaviour. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47380-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation