1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerned the lawfulness of fines imposed by the State Food and Consumer Service on a medical center for violations of advertising legislation, specifically due to the absence of information on the duration of discounts and the mandatory warning regarding the dangers of self-medication in outdoor advertising.<\/p>\n
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that any information containing a commercial offer (such as a “10% discount”) constitutes advertising, regardless of whether the business entity itself considers it as such.
\n – The Court clearly distinguished between the concepts of a “signage” and “advertising”: if the facade displays not only the name of the establishment but also calls to receive services at a discount, this automatically falls under the scope of the Law “On Advertising.”
\n – An important conclusion is that the concept of an “indefinite discount” does not exist in legislation, as the very definition of a discount implies its temporary nature.
\n – The Court stressed that the advertiser is obliged to indicate the start and end dates of the discount directly in the advertisement so that the consumer has complete information.
\n – Internal company orders regarding the “indefinite” nature of discounts do not take precedence over the mandatory provisions of the law and do not exempt the entity from the obligation to comply with advertising content requirements.
\n – The Court also noted that the assessment of the lawfulness of a government agency\u2019s actions is conducted solely on the basis of documents that were provided to the control authority during the inspection, rather than those that appeared only during court proceedings.
\n – **Legal Position:** In this case, the Supreme Court departed from its previous position, which allowed for the interpretation of price offers as “indefinite” based on internal administrative documents of the business entity, establishing that such documents cannot supersede the legal definitions of a special law.<\/p>\n
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the cancellation of the fine for the absence of discount validity periods and rendered a new decision confirming the lawfulness of the fine imposed on the medical center.<\/p>\n