Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Member State Interests and the EU Law on Unfair B2C and B2B Practices

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Between Compliance and Particularism

  • 603 Accesses

Abstract

The law against unfair business-to-consumer and business-to-business practices in the EU is an area where the interests of the European Union and those of its Member States interact rather intensively. On the one hand, the Union, as well as its Member States, strive to achieve the relevant common policy objectives. On the other, national governments are keen to preserve their authority in defining the desirable standard of competition and consumer protection. The gradual harmonisation of the law has led to an expansion of the EU’s interests, inevitably creating tensions with interests of the Member States. There are visible discrepancies between the expectations of the Member States when they agreed, by offering concessions, to the furthering of EU policy in this domain and the ultimate position taken by the EU’s interests vis-à-vis those safeguarded by the Member States. Overall it is questionable whether an appropriate balance has been established between the EU’s predominantly market-related policy goals and the complex array of national interests in the analysed field.

The research leading to this publication was financed by the National Science Centre (Narodowe Centrum Nauki) in Poland on the basis of decisions no. DEC-2013/11/B/HS5/03633 and DEC-2015/19/N/HS5/01557.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the purposes of this chapter, the law on unfair B2C and B2B practices refers to the rules against unfair practices applied by businesses and directed either at other businesses (business-to-business unfairness) or at consumers (business-to-consumer unfairness). In the B2C setting, the goal of maintaining a high standard of competition is interconnected with a strong consumer protection objective. The rules against unfair commercial/trading practices need to be distinguished from the rules against practices, which restrict competition, the latter being the subject-matter of competition (antitrust) law. See, generally, Ullrich (2005), Hilty (2007) and Keirsbilck (2011).

  2. 2.

    See the chapters by Papp and by Brook and Cseres in this volume.

  3. 3.

    This refers, in particular, to the role assumed by the EU with respect to consumer protection and fundamental rights. In both areas, however, market-related goals are still pronounced; see Micklitz (2016) and Reynolds (2016).

  4. 4.

    For a deeper analysis, see Caro de Sousa (2012).

  5. 5.

    See, in particular, Judgment of 5 February 1963, van Gend en Loos, Case 26/62, EU:C:1963:1.

  6. 6.

    For two early examples, see Judgment 20 February 1979, Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon), Case 120/78, EU:C:1979:42; Judgment of 2 March 1982, BV Diensten Groep v Beele, Case 6/81, EU:C:1982:72.

  7. 7.

    Judgment of 11 July 1974, Dassonville, Case 8/74, EU:C:1974:82.

  8. 8.

    Judgment of 6 July 1995, Mars, C-470/93, EU:C:1995:224.

  9. 9.

    Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising, [1984] OJ L250/17.

  10. 10.

    See also Article 169(4) TFEU.

  11. 11.

    On the instrumentalisation of consumer law for the purpose of market integration, see Micklitz (2016), pp. 22–23. This process also required a change at the rhetorical level. Thus, the functions of harmonisation policy in the field of consumer law have increasingly been associated with promoting “consumer confidence” in the border-free market, see Weatherill (2001).

  12. 12.

    For examples from a related domain, see European Commission (2008) and the finally adopted Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, [2011] OJ L304/64, and European Commission (2011).

  13. 13.

    For a criticism of status-related approach in the context of contract law, see Cafaggi (2013); see also Jabłonowska (2018).

  14. 14.

    See the original proposal for a Council Directive relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading and unfair advertising (European Commission (1977).

  15. 15.

    Directive 97/55/EC of European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising, [1997] OJ L290/18.

  16. 16.

    The expansion was mainly pushed by the European Commission; see, in particular, European Commission (2002, 2007).

  17. 17.

    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’), [2005] OJ L149/22.

  18. 18.

    Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, [2006] OJ L376/21.

  19. 19.

    For an illustration of the differences regarding B2B relationships in the platform economy see European Commission (2018e), p. 39.

  20. 20.

    For an illustration of the respective reasoning see European Commission (2018c), p. 260.

  21. 21.

    Articles 6 and 7. See also Judgment of 19 September 2013, CHS Tour Services, C-435/11, EU:C:2013:574.

  22. 22.

    More specifically, consumer belonging to “a clearly identifiable group of consumers who are particularly vulnerable to the practice or the underlying product because of their mental or physical infirmity, age or credulity in a way which the trader could reasonably be expected to foresee” (Article 5(3)). See Reich (2016).

  23. 23.

    For an overview, see Stuyck (2015).

  24. 24.

    Judgment of 12 May 2011, Ving Sverige, C-122/10, EU:C:2011:299.

  25. 25.

    Judgment of 16 April 2015, UPC Magyarország, C-388/13, EU:C:2015:225.

  26. 26.

    Judgment of 14 January 2010, Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft, C-304/08, EU:C:2010:12.

  27. 27.

    Judgment of 23 April 2009, VTB-VAB, C-261/07 and C-299/07, EU:C:2009:244; Judgment of 30 May 2013, Euronics Belgium, C-343/12, EU:C:2013:154.

  28. 28.

    Judgment of 19 October 2017, Europamur Alimentación, C-295/16, EU:C:2017:782.

  29. 29.

    Judgment of 18 October 2012, Nolan, C-583/10, EU:C:2012:638.

  30. 30.

    Notably, the judgment places a higher risk on an integrated approach to B2C and B2B unfairness. Such an approach, however, does not have to consist in the extended applicability of the UCPD as appears for some of the Member States. For Italy, see De Cristofaro (2015).

  31. 31.

    Judgment of 20 July 2017, Gelvora, C-357/16, EU:C:2017:573.

  32. 32.

    Judgment of 16 April 2015, UPC Magyarország, C-388/13, EU:C:2015:225, paragraphs 57–59. See also Balogh and Cseres (2013). On the discussion of a different development in the law against unfair terms, see Van Duin (2017).

  33. 33.

    See, in particular, Articles 3(2) and 3(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ [2003] L1/1.

  34. 34.

    See the seminal comparative study in Ulmer (1965).

  35. 35.

    Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, [2000] OJ L200/35.

  36. 36.

    Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, [2011] OJ L48/1.

  37. 37.

    Directive 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure, [2016] OJ L157/1.

  38. 38.

    Article 12(3) of Directive 2011/7/EU.

  39. 39.

    Article 1(2) of Directive 2016/943/EU. See also European Commission (2013a).

  40. 40.

    Particularly in the food supply chain and in the digital market, see European Commission (2018b, d).

  41. 41.

    Act of 16 April 1993 on combating unfair competition (Ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Dz.U. 2003 nr 153 poz. 1503 (codified version).

  42. 42.

    Act of 15 December 2016 on counteracting the unfair use of contractual advantage in the trade in agricultural and food products (Ustawa o przeciwdziałaniu nieuczciwemu wykorzystywaniu przewagi kontraktowej w obrocie produktami rolnymi i spożywczymi), Dz. U. 2017 poz. 67.

  43. 43.

    Article 8 of the Act on counteracting the unfair use of contractual advantage. In this regard, see Namysłowska and Piszcz (2017). Under the pre-existing framework, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection could only launch public enforcement where the acts of B2B unfairness also harmed collective consumer interests. See Article 24(2)(3) of the Act of 16 February 2007 on competition and consumer protection (Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów), Dz.U. 2018 poz. 798.

  44. 44.

    Such as the Supply Chain Initiative, http://www.supplychaininitiative.eu. Accessed 4 Apr 2018.

  45. 45.

    As seen by the example of consumer laws in CEE.

  46. 46.

    On the interface between EU competition policy and the CAP, see European Commission (2016c).

References

  • Balogh, V., & Cseres, K. J. (2013). Institutional design in Hungary: A case study of the unfair commercial practices directive. Journal of Consumer Policy, 36(3), 343–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baquero Cruz, J. (2002). Between competition and free movement: The economic constitutional law of the European Community. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cafaggi, F. (2013). From a status to a transaction-based approach? Institutional design in European contract law. Common Market Law Review, 50, 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cafaggi, F., & Iamiceli, P. (2017). The principles of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness in the enforcement of EU consumer law: The impact of a triad on the choice of civil remedies and administrative sanctions. European Review of Private Law, 25, 575–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caro de Sousa, P. (2012). Negative and positive integration in EU economic law: Between strategic denial and cognitive dissonance? German Law Journal, 13, 979–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (2009). The European economic constitution and the constitutional dimension of private law. European Review of Contract Law, 5, 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union. (2004a). Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 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), Doc. 11630/2/2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union. (2004b). Council statements made in procedure 2003/0134(COD) Consumer protection: Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, 14166/2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union. (2016). Council conclusions – Strengthening the farmers’ position in the food supply chain and tackling unfair trading practices, 15508/16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damjanovic, D. (2013). The EU market rules as social market rules: Why the EU can be a social market economy. Common Market Law Review, 50, 1685–1718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cristofaro, G. (2015). Unfair business-to-microenterprise commercial practices: The Italian solution in the European context – the extended scope of application of UCP Directive’s implementing provisions. Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, 5, 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vrey, R. W. (2006). Towards a European unfair competition law. A clash between legal families. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1977). Proposal for a Council directive relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading and unfair advertising COM(1977) 724 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1983). Commission report: Assessment of the function of the internal market COM(83) 80 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001). Communication on sales promotion in the Internal Market COM(2001) 546 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002). Commission Communication: Consumer policy strategy 2002–2006 COM(2002) 208 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2003). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the Internal Market and amending directives 84/450/EEC, 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) COM(2003) 356 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2004). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the Internal Market and amending Regulation [Consumer Protection Co-operation] and directives 84/450/EEC, 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) COM(2004) 753 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2006). Green Paper on the review of the consumer acquis COM(2006) 744 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee - EU Consumer Policy strategy 2007–2013 - Empowering consumers, enhancing their welfare, effectively protecting them COM(2007) 99 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2008). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer rights COM(2008) 614 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2009). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A better functioning food supply chain in Europe COM(2009) 591 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2011). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law COM(2011) 635 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Protecting businesses against misleading marketing practices and ensuring effective enforcement Review of Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising COM(2012) 702 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2013a). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure COM(2013) 813 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2013b). Green Paper on unfair trading practices in the business-to-business food and non-food supply chain in Europe COM(2013) 37 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2014a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Tackling unfair trading practices in the business-to-business food supply chain COM(2014) 472 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2014b). The Juncker Commission. The right team to deliver change. SPEECH-14-585.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2016a). Guidance on the implementation/application of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices SWD(2016) 163 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2016b). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on unfair business-to-business trading practices in the food supply chain COM(2016) 32 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2016c). An overview of European competition rules applying in the agricultural sector (DG Comp). Retrieved January 20, 2017, from https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/agri-markets-task-force/2016-06-28/memo.pdf

  • European Commission. (2017a). Report of the Fitness Check on 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 SWD(2017) 209 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2017b). Commission initiative to improve the governance of the food supply chain with regard to unfair trading practices, one rule regarding producer cooperation and market transparency, Ares(2017)3735471.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2018a). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection rules COM(2018) 185 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2018b). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain COM(2018) 173 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2018c). Commission staff working document: Impact assessment: Initiative to improve the food supply chain (unfair trading practices): Accompanying the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain: Annex H prepared for the impact assessment. SWD(2018) 92 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2018d). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services COM(2018) 238 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2018e). Commission staff working document: Impact assessment: Accompanying the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services. SWD(2018) 138 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. (2016). Motion for a European Parliament resolution on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain, 2015/2065/INI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, J. (2007). The ECJ’s case law on unfair competition. In R. M. Hilty & F. Henning-Bodewig (Eds.), Law against unfair competition towards a new paradigm in Europe? (pp. 101–110). Berlin, New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Henning-Bodewig, F. (2007). Secondary unfair competition law. In R. M. Hilty & F. Henning-Bodewig (Eds.), Law against unfair competition towards a new paradigm in Europe? (pp. 111–125). Berlin, New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hilty, R. M. (2007). The law against unfair competition and its interfaces. In R. M. Hilty & F. Henning-Bodewig (Eds.), Law against unfair competition towards a new paradigm in Europe? (pp. 1–52). Berlin, New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jabłonowska, A. (2018). Status-related consumer protection in the digital economy. LLM Thesis. Retrieved June 20, 2018, from http://cadmus.eui.eu//handle/1814/50746

  • Joerges, C. (2005). What is left of the European economic constitution? A melancholic eulogy. European Law Review, 30, 461–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Statement. (2016, April 29). Joint statement of the Ministers of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia on the Situation on Commodity Markets. Prague. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from https://www.minrol.gov.pl/content/download/56972/313420/version/1/file/Joint%20Statement%20of%20the%20Ministers%20of%20Agriculture%20V4+4.pdf

  • Kaupa, C. (2016). The pluralist character of the European economic constitution. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keirsbilck, B. (2011). The new European law of unfair commercial practices and competition law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maduro, M. P. (1998). We the Court – The European Court of Justice and the European economic constitution. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz, H.-W. (2009). The targeted full harmonisation approach: Looking behind the curtain. In G. Howells & R. Schulze (Eds.), Modernising and harmonising consumer contract law (pp. 47–86). Munich: Sellier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz, H.-W. (2016). The consumer: marketised, fragmentised, constitutionalised. In D. Leczykiewicz & S. Weatherill (Eds.), The images of the consumer in EU law: Legislation, free movement and competition law (pp. 21–41). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Namysłowska, M., & Piszcz, A. (2017). Ustawa o przeciwdziałaniu nieuczciwemu wykorzystywaniu przewagi kontraktowej w obrocie produktami rolnymi i spożywczymi. Komentarz. Warsaw: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podszun, R. (2013). Unfair trading practices: The Commission’s Green Paper for fairness in B2B-dealings. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Unternehmens- und Verbraucherrecht, 2, 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • REFIT Scoreboard. REFIT Scoreboard. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from http://publications.europa.eu/webpub/com/refit-scoreboard/en/images/REFIT_Scoreboard.pdf

  • Reich, N. (2016). Vulnerable consumers in EU law. In D. Leczykiewicz & S. Weatherill (Eds.), The images of the consumer in EU law: Legislation, free movement and competition law (pp. 139–158). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Report. Report on the outcome of public consultation of the Green paper on the review of consumer acquis. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/cons_int/safe_shop/acquis/acquis_working_doc.pdf

  • Reynolds, S. (2016). Explaining the constitutional drivers behind a perceived judicial preference for free movement over fundamental rights. Common Market Law Review, 53, 643–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutgers, J. W. (2009). The European economic constitution, freedom of contract and the DCFR. European Review of Contract Law, 5, 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S. K. (2008). Beyond compliance: The Europeanization of Member States through negative integration and legal uncertainty. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 10, 299–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Study. Study for the fitness check of EU consumer and marketing law (Final report Part 1 – Main report). Retrieved March 15, 2017, from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f7b3958b-772b-11e7-b2f2-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

  • Stuyck, J. (2015). The Court of Justice and the unfair commercial practices directive. Common Market Law Review, 52, 721–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonner, K. (2014). From the Kennedy message to full harmonising consumer law directives: A retrospect. In K. Purnhagen & P. Rott (Eds.), Varieties of European economic law and regulation: Liber Amicorum for Hans Micklitz (pp. 693–708). Berlin, New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullrich, H. (2005). Anti-unfair competition law and anti-trust law: A continental conundrum? (EUI Working Paper LAW No. 2005/01).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, E. (1965). Das Recht des unlauteren Wettbewerbs in den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft. München: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Duin, A. (2017). Metamorphosis? The role of Article 47 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights in cases concerning national remedies and procedures under Directive 93/13/EEC. Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, 6, 190–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill, S. (2001). Justifying limits to party autonomy in the internal market – EC legislation in the field of consumer protection. In S. Grundmann, W. Kerber, & S. Weatherill (Eds.), Party autonomy and the role of information in the internal market (pp. 173–196). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill, S. (2012). The consumer rights directive: How and why a quest for “coherence” has (largely) failed. Common Market Law Review, 49, 1279–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill, S. (2016). The internal market as a legal concept. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Łódź, Faculty of Law and Administration, Łódź, Poland

    Monika Namysłowska & Agnieszka Jabłonowska

Authors
  1. Monika Namysłowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Agnieszka Jabłonowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika Namysłowska .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

    Marton Varju

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Namysłowska, M., Jabłonowska, A. (2019). Member State Interests and the EU Law on Unfair B2C and B2B Practices. In: Varju, M. (eds) Between Compliance and Particularism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05781-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05782-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation