Dear oscarra,ah just a quick reminder…
Judgment of the Consumer Court against a Cypriot company for an unfair term
The Consumer Protection Service announced an administrative decision against IronFX Global Ltd. for breach of the Unfair Terms of Consumption Law.
According to a statement from the PIO, the decision relates to an investigation conducted by the Director of the Service in connection with the existence of an unfair term in a brokerage contract of that company.
The Director, exercising the powers conferred on him by law, has decided that this term is contrary to the provisions of articles 5 (1), 5 (4) and 7 of the law and is therefore abusive and / or opaque.
This term relates, inter alia, to the right of the company, at its absolute discretion, to refuse, withhold or withdraw from the accounts of its clients the payment of a benefit / gain from stock exchange transactions which they have carried out, suspect that they have abused the terms of the contract or any other promotional action or have acted in bad faith without specifying what constitutes the abuse and / or the criteria under which the company exercises the above discretion in particular.
IronFX Global: Legally incorrect the content of the decision of the Ministry of Culture
IronFX Global believes that the content of the Consumer Protection Authority's (MLS) ruling on unfair terms in its brokerage contract is legally erroneous, inaccurate and defamatory in its entirety.
In a statement on this decision, IronFX reports that it has secured a wealth of legal advice from internationally recognized law firms demonstrating its full compliance with MiFID regulations.
"All reports, including the advice of a top British Counsel, confirm that the Company retains every legitimate right to do so in the event that its customers violate the terms and conditions of the relevant agreement," the statement said.
The Company has repeatedly explained its position at the Ministry of Finance, inviting its executives to a meeting at IronFX's offices in order to examine their own opinions.
However, he notes, despite the Company's appeals, no meeting was held.
The Company adds that it has informed the Ministry that it is licensed and supervised by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission and that its services are governed by the regulatory framework for investment services.
"Therefore, the recipients of the services are not considered as" consumers "as defined in the Cypriot legislation under which the Ministry of the Interior issued this decision.
A similar case was dealt with by three different courts in Hungary, which ruled that the recipients of investment services are not considered to be "consumers" as defined in the relevant European legislation, "IronFX said.
He also explained to the Ministry of the Interior that the provision in question is not equivalent to "at will" as in cases of breaches affecting the Company's interests, the Company is entitled to carry out actions which are fair, necessary and in full compliance with the relevant legislation, as confirmed by the aforementioned legal opinions.
The Company also explained to the Ministry of Finance that the recipients of its services were included in the benefit plan, at their own will and desire.
Finally, he adds that "it is worthy of the fact that this decision is timely in relation to the factual or legal facts to which it refers, based on Article 10 of the Law of Administrative Law", noting that this decision is contrary to the to date, the policy and tactics of investment firms and may well be considered to be contrary to the principle of proportionality under Article 52 of that law.
Source: CNA http://24h.com.cy/?s=IRONFX
Thank you for your comment.
We note that in regards to the administrative decision of the Consumer Protection Service (CPS): (1) the CPS has no regulatory jurisdiction on the Company and no legal power vested, (2) we have commenced legal action against the CPS which is currently ongoing for the erroneous decision, (3) we have won a seminal Court case that clients are not consumers.
We also refer you to point 5 of our opening statement in this thread (see link http://www.forexpeacearmy.com/community/threads/ironfx-falsely-accused-broker.54115/).