C-369/89
ECLI:EU:C:1990:452
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61989CC0369
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR TESAURO —CASE C-369/89
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL TESAURO delivered on 11 December 1990 *
Mr President, 2. I will briefly summarize the facts. Members of the Court, Peeters, the defendant in the main action, is established in Belgium in the Flemish- speaking region, where it markets mineral waters whose labels are printed solely in French or in German.
1. In these proceedings, the Court is asked to interpret Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the The Piageme Association and a certain approximation of the laws of the Member number of companies which import and States relating to the labelling, presentation market mineral waters consider that such a and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the practice is contrary to the Belgian legislation ultimate consumer. 1 on labelling and have commenced proceedings against Peeters in the Rechtbank van Koophandel (Commercial Court), Louvain, for an order restraining sales, under threat of a fine.
Under the latter provision, Member States are to ensure that the sale of foodstuffs within their own territories is prohibited if the particulars provided for in Article 3 and As the defendant objected that the national Article 4(2) of the directive do not appear in legislation relied upon was not in a language easily understood by purchasers, conformity with Article 30 of the Treaty unless other measures have been taken to and with Article 14 of Directive 79/112, the ensure that the purchaser is informed. court stayed the proceedings in order to consult the Court of Justice on this point.
In Belgium, Article 10 of the Royal Decree 3. Prior to examining the substance of the of 2 October 1980, now Article 11 of the question, I will briefly consider the problem Royal Decree of 13 November 1986, on the of whether the Court has jurisdiction to give labelling of prepackaged foodstuffs, which a reply to the question referred by the transposes Article 14 of the directive, national court. provides that the particulars specified in Article 2 of the Decree and in specific regu- lations must appear at least in the language or languages of the linguistic region where the foodstuffs are sold. The plaintiffs in the main action maintain that the question whether the Belgian legis- * Original language: Italian. lation is incompatible with the directive in 1 — OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1. question only arises if it is established,
I - 2976
PIAGEME
before the national court, that the provision down in Article 177 of the Treaty had been of information for the consumer is effec- misused in order to induce the Court to tively guaranteed, even in the absence of make a ruling by means of fictitious liti- particulars in the language of the region in gation or if it became obvious that the which the products are offered for sale. Community-law provision whose interpret- ation was requested did not apply.
As the referring court has not verified whether that is the case, the reply of the Court is unnecessary in order to decide the However, nothing in these proceedings case, which at this point is concerned more leads me to consider that one of the above with the question whether the consumer can situations exists here and I therefore do not understand particulars supplied in a consider that the Court's jurisdiction can language other than his own. seriously be in doubt in this case.
4. On this point it is sufficient to look at the decided cases of the Court, 2which has held that, by virtue of the division of 5. I now turn to the substance of the functions between national courts and the question. It seems clear, even on a first Court of Justice, it is for the national court, reading, that the national provision in which must accept the responsibility for the question is more restrictive than Article 14 subsequent judicial decision, to assess, with of the directive inasmuch as, by making full possession of the facts, the necessity for, compulsory the use of the language of the and the relevance of, the questions which it region in which the foodstuffs are sold, the refers. national provision, unlike the corresponding Community-law provision, does not allow the possible use of another language which could easily be understood by purchasers and does not allow any derogation in the When such questions relate to the interpre- event of consumer information being tation of a Community-law provision, the guaranteed by other means. Court is therefore, in principle, required to give a ruling without having to inquire into the circumstances which led the national courts to refer the questions.
The plaintiffs in the main action none the less argue that Article 14 of the directive obliges Member States to prohibit the sale The problem could only arise in different of foodstuffs which do not meet the terms if it appeared that the procedure laid requirements laid down with regard to comprehensibility of particulars appearing 2 — See in particular the judgment in Case C-231/89 Gmurzynska-Bscher v Oberfinanzdirektion Kolt [1990] on the label, but does not oblige them to ECR I-4003, paragraphs 19, 20, 22 and 23; judgment in Case C-297/88 Massam Dzodzi v Belgian State [1990] authorize any labelling as long as the ECR 1-3763, paragraphs 34, 35. 39 and 40 wording is easily understood by purchasers.
I - 2977
OPINION OF MR TESAURO —CASE C-369/89
6. That argument is unfounded inasmuch the regulations of the importing State and as, in reality, such an interpretation does to be understood by consumers in that not take sufficient account of the more State. 4 general context in which the provision appears.
It is clear that, although the obligation to include certain particulars according to First of all, it should be noted that the specific rules does not totally impede the directive in question, which establishes import of products originating in other general horizontal Community rules Member States or in free circulation there, applicable to foodstuffs, was designed in it may none the less render their sale more order to improve the functioning of the difficult, especially in cases of parallel Common Market and the free movement of imports; such a requirement cannot goods whilst guaranteeing that consumers therefore be considered to be compatible receive correct information and sufficient with Article 30 unless it can be actually protection. 3 Article 15 provides that justified for reasons of general interest Member States may not forbid trade in relating to consumer protection. foodstuffs which comply with the rules laid down in the directive by applying non-harmonized national provisions governing the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs. Article 14 of Directive 79/112 must therefore be interpreted not only as imposing on Member States the obligation to guarantee correct consumer information but also as setting down the means and the limits within which that fundamental right Secondly, it should be pointed out that the can be protected whilst avoiding unjusti- provisions of the directive cannot, in any fiable obstacles to trade. event, be interpreted as containing a limi- tation of the rights which individuals derive directly from Article 30 of the Treaty.
7. In the context of the preliminary-ruling procedure, the assessment of the facts necessary in order to ascertain whether it is However, in relation to that article the effectively guaranteed that the consumer is Court has already had occasion to specify informed in the present case falls within the that the interests of consumer protection jurisdiction of the national court, which which can justify the requiring of specific must, in making its own findings, take into names or particulars become irrelevant in account the fact that, given the purpose of cases where the particulars which appear on the Community-law provision in question, the product's original label contain the reference to comprehensibility of the sufficient information to be equivalent to the information requirement laid down by 4 — See in particular the judgment in Case 220/81 Criminal proceeding against Timothy Frederick Robertson and others [1982] ECR 2349, paragraphs 11, 12 and 13: judgment in 3 — See second, third, fourth and seventh recitals to the Case 27/80 Criminal proceedings against Anton Adriaan preamble. Fietje [1980] ECR 3839.
I - 2978
PIAGEME
language is aimed less at linguistic particular, the nature of the product and comprehensibility as such than at ensuring consumers' familiarity therewith, as well as that the actual content of the particulars on the existence of other packaging of the same the label can be deciphered. Maintaining product which may carry the required that approach, it will then have to take into particulars in a more accessible language, account not only any possible multilin- thus allowing a sort of translation by gualism in the country but also, in approximation. 5
8. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I conclude by proposing that the C o u r t should reply as follows t o the question referred by the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Louvain:
Article 14 of Directive 7 9 / 1 1 2 / E E C is to be interpreted as prohibiting national legislation from imposing an absolute obligation to use a particular language for the labelling of foodstuffs, without allowing for the possibility of using another language easily understood by purchasers or of ensuring that consumers are informed by other means.
5 — It is worth n o t i n g that, bv a decision of 28 September 1987, the Correctionele Rechtbank ( C r i m i n a l Court) Mechelen, decided, w i t h regard to the sale of bottles of Coca Cola featuring a label in German, that such a practice was in accordance w i t h Article 14 of Directive 79/112, and refused to apply Article 10 of the Royal Decree of 2 October 1980 (see Journal del Tribunaux, 1988, N o 5448, p. 48). T h a t decision, however has been appealed against in the H o f van Beroep (Court of Appeal), Antwerp, which has not vet made a ruling For analogous decisions f r o m courts in the Netherlands applying the above criteria, sec V a n Bunnen, ' L ' e m p l o i des langues dans l'etiquetage et le droit communautaire', Journal des Tribunaux, 1988, N o 5448, p 41
I - 2979