pay for a broken phone which is still under warranty

[mojo88]

So I found this new cheap moto e6i for sale for 99 euros at the local electronics store. After about 10 months it starts giving problems especially the wifi connectivity - so I send it back to the store for repairs because its still under warranty.

I get it back in a week and then its still not working properly.

I send it back again and after another week the store emails and says repair company could not find a problem & now I MUST PAY 61.90€ if I want to get my phone BACK!

When I sent the phone back for the second repair attempt, the customer service at the store did not mention anything about that I must pay if they dont find a problem! (even though its still under guarantee)..

Why should I pay a total of 160.90 for a phone that doesn't work properly!
Is this normal OR EVEN LEGAL here in Finland?
I feel totally screwed over.
I have filed a basic complaint through Finnish consumers services.
I have asked for a refund of 99e and refused to pay the repair costs.

Any other suggestions?

[mojo88]

https://www.kkv.fi/kuluttaja-asiat/mark ... ittaminen/

The consumer is under no obligation to pay additional costs for which the company has not provided information before placing the order and for which the consumer has not given his clear consent. The consumer has the right to get the additional payments back if he has not given his consent to them.

If the services are offered or performed elsewhere than in the business premises or on the website, the price list must be presented upon request. The obligation to present a price list applies to services and financial services referred to in the Act on the Provision of Services.

The consumer has the right to monetary or other financial compensation if the trader's marketing or procedure in the customer relationship has violated the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and influenced the consumer's decision, for example, to buy a product or not to switch to another service provider.

Reimbursement can come into question, for example, if the trader is
failed to provide essential information about the product in its marketing
marketed the product misleadingly or untruthfully
provided financially unfavorable information about the contract
gave the debtor false information about his rights during the collection or threatened with collection actions that the creditor does not have the right to undertake.