ANPC Romania fails to protect consumers and ignores its European obligations
I contacted ANPC Romania for two serious problems: a Xiaomi phone sold with false specifications by Vodafone Romania and another seriously damaged after official assistance. In both cases, ANPC closed the complaints without investigations, inspections or requests for documentation from the parties involved. No investigation, no contact, only institutional silence.
🔍 Systemic violations :
Violation of Article 38 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights : right to effective consumer protection.
Violation of art. 169 TFEU : ANPC has the obligation to ensure the effectiveness of EU law on the national territory.
Non-application of directives 2019/771/EU (guarantee of conformity) and 2005/29/EC (unfair practices), which impose inspection and sanctioning powers .
⚖️ Case law in my favor :
Court of Justice of the EU, C-154/05 (Commission vs Italy): national authorities are liable if they fail to ensure the effective application of EU consumer protection law.
TAR Lazio, sentence no. 12736/2021: even the inertia of the authorities can constitute a violation of public service obligations.
ANPC did not act as an independent consumer protection authority, but as a mere sorting desk. Unacceptable.
🟨 REVIEW – GERSIM IMPEX (Official Xiaomi Romania Importer)
Title: Gersim Denies Liability for Product It Imports and Distributes
My Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G EEA phone, purchased from Vodafone Romania, had lower specifications than advertised. Gersim, as the official Xiaomi importer in Romania , denied any responsibility , stating that it does not deal with end consumers, despite the Consumer Code and European directives imposing specific obligations on those who place the product on the market.
🔍 Documented violations :
Directive 2019/771/EU, art. 4-6: importers are jointly liable for the conformity of the goods.
Violation of the Romanian Consumer Code (art. 16-20) and European regulations on distribution chain liability.
Violation of Directive 2005/29/EC : refusal of assistance without legal basis = unfair and aggressive behaviour .
⚖️ EU case law in support :
C-32/12, Duarte Hueros: even those who are not the direct seller may be responsible for remedies in the event of defects.
Court of Justice, C-497/13 (Froukje Faber): the consumer has the right to assert discrepancies against any actor in the commercial chain.
Gersim acts as an official importer only for commercial advantages, but refuses any obligation under European law. Serious incorrectness.
July 5, 2024
Unprompted review
