Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:357
Date: 2026-04-30
Language of the case: Italian

Summary C-301/25 – 1 
Case C-301/25 
Summary of request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
24 April 2025 
Referring court: 
Consiglio di Stato (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
22 April 2025 
Applicant and appellant: 
Lidl Italia Srl 
Defendant and respondent: 
Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal brought against judgment No 2453/2023 of the Tribunale amministrativo 
regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy), which 
dismissed the action brought by Lidl Italia Srl, appellant in these proceedings, 
against the decision of the Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato 
(Italian Competition Authority) by which that company was fined for an improper 
commercial practice. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Article 169 TFEU, Directive 2005/29/EC and Regulation (EU) 
No 1169/2011 with a view to laying down rules on penalties applying to unfair 
commercial practices in the food sector. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-301/25 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
(1) Does the conduct envisaged in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 
constitute specific cases of improper/unfair commercial practices, which in any 
event fall within the scope of Article 6 et seq. of Directive 2005/29/EC and are 
subject as such also to Article 11 et seq. of that directive and to the implementing 
legislation; or does it constitute an autonomous system, the application of which, 
that is to say, its enforcement, requires reference to be made, not to the directive 
but, in the Italian system, solely to Legislative Decree No 231/2017? 
(2) Does the conduct envisaged in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 
provide consumers with a full and comprehensive form of protection in the 
purchase of foodstuffs, with the result that it is not possible to apply the general 
protection provided for by Directive 2005/29/EC or, on the contrary, does that 
conduct form part of consumer protection, in conjunction with the provisions of 
Directive 2005/29/EC and the national legislation implementing it? 
(3) If the conduct envisaged in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 is to 
be classified as improper commercial practices and is subject to Directive 
2005/29/EC, is the penalty provided for in Article 3 of Legislative Decree 
No 231/2017 capable of guaranteeing a deterrent against unlawful conduct, by 
ensuring the protection of consumers under Article 169 TFEU, and is it in any 
event compatible with Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC? 
European Union law relied upon 
TFEU, in particular Article 169; 
Directive 2005/29/EC, and in particular recital 10, Article 3(4), Article 6(1) and 
Article 13(1) and (3); 
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, and in particular recital 5, Article 1(1) and (2), 
Article 7(1), (2) and (4), Article 26(1) and (3) and Article 36(2). 
European Union case-law relied on 
Judgment of the Court of 13 September 2018, Wind Tre, C-54/17 and C-55/17, 
EU:C:2018:710. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreto legislativo n. 206/2005 (Legislative Decree No 206/2005) establishing the 
Consumer Code, in particular Article 21, entitled ‘Misleading actions’, which 
provides: 
LIDL ITALY 
 
3 
‘1. A commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading where it contains 
information which is untrue, or, even if materially accurate, it in any way, 
including in its overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average 
consumer in relation to one or more of the following elements, and in any event 
causes or is likely to cause him or her to take a transactional decision that he or 
she would not have otherwise taken: … (b) the main characteristics of the product, 
such as … the composition … the geographical origin …’. 
Decreto legislativo n. 231/2017 (Legislative Decree No 231/2017) laying down 
the rules on penalties for infringement of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, in 
particular Article 1(1), which provides: 
‘This Decree lays down the rules on penalties for infringement of the provisions 
of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, “the 
Regulation”, without prejudice to the rules on penalties laid down in Legislative 
Decree No 206 of 6 September 2005’. 
Pursuant to Article 3(1), entitled ‘Infringement of fair information practices 
referred to in Article 7 of the Regulation’: 
‘Unless the act constitutes an offence, and to the exclusion of cases specifically 
penalised by the other provisions of this decree, infringement of the provisions 
referred to in Article 7 of the Regulation on fair information practices shall give 
rise to the imposition on the food business operator of an administrative fine 
ranging from EUR 3 000 to EUR 24 000’. 
Article 26, entitled ‘Competent authorities for the imposition of penalties’, 
provides: 
‘1. The Department for agri-food products quality protection and fraud repression 
of the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy is designated as the 
competent authority to impose the administrative fines provided for in this Decree. 
2. The powers conferred on the Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato 
(Italian Competition Authority) under Legislative Decree No 145 of 2 August 
2007 and Legislative Decree No 206 of 6 September 2005 remain unchanged, as 
do those which, under the legislation in force, are conferred on the bodies 
responsible for establishing infringements. …’ 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The company Lidl, appellant in the main proceedings, marketed certain types of 
pasta, the packaging of which bore eye-catching trade marks or protected 
geographical indications evoking the Italian origin of those foodstuffs (for 
example, by affixing images from Italy, drawings with the colours of the Italian 
flag or indications such as ‘Prodotto in Italia’ (produced in Italy), ‘Passione 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-301/25 
 
4  
italiana’ (Italian passion) and others), whereas the indication ‘Country of wheat 
cultivation: EU and non-EU’ was shown only on the back of the packaging. 
2 As regards those products, by decision of 20 December 2019 (the ‘contested 
decision’) the Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato (Italian 
Competition Authority, ‘the AGCM’) imposed on Lidl an administrative fine of 
EUR 1 000 000 for improper commercial practice, within the meaning of 
Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Legislative Decree No 206/2005, in view of the turnover 
generated by the conduct complained of and the large number of consumers 
involved. 
3 Lidl brought an action against the contested decision before the Regional 
Administrative Court, Lazio, which was dismissed by judgment No 2453/2023. 
4 The appellant company brought an appeal against that judgment before the 
Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), the referring court. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
5 The AGCM criticises the appellant company for marketing certain types of durum 
wheat pasta, the packaging and presentation on that company’s website of which 
contain indications that highlight the Italian origin of those foodstuffs, even 
though they are produced from flour obtained from wheat originating, to a 
significant extent, from other member states of the European Union and non-
member states. 
6 The AGCM points out that, according to studies and research, Italian consumers 
attach great importance in their purchases of foodstuffs to information on their 
origin and the raw materials with which they are produced. Indeed, for the 
purpose of making a purchase, the origin of a foodstuff is more important than the 
price at which it is sold. 
7 According to the AGCM, the use of packaging which clearly highlights the Italian 
origin of a foodstuff would lead the Italian consumer to consider that the raw 
materials from which that foodstuff is produced are also of Italian origin, with the 
result that, in order to ensure that the consumer is properly informed, the same 
packaging must highlight the use of raw material of foreign origin with the same 
emphasis. That did not occur in the present case, in so far as the information 
concerning the foreign origin of the wheat with which the pasta is manufactured is 
not easily legible on the packaging in question. 
8 In that context, the AGCM maintains that the appellant company engaged in an 
improper commercial practice in so far as it marketed packets of pasta which may 
lead consumers mistakenly to believe that those foodstuffs were prepared in Italy 
using raw materials wholly produced in Italy, including the wheat. 
LIDL ITALY 
 
5 
9 The appellant seeks the variation of the judgment under appeal and the annulment 
of the contested decision. In support of its appeal, it relies on pleas already put 
forward in the application at first instance. 
10 First, the appellant company claims infringement of Article 3 of Directive 2005/29 
and Legislative Decree No 206/2005 (‘the Consumer Code’) in so far as the 
AGCM is not competent to make the contested decision. In that regard, the 
appellant company claims that unfair commercial practices concerning foodstuffs 
fall solely within the scope of Article 7 of Regulation No 1169/2011. 
Consequently, the AGCM is not competent to penalise the conduct which is the 
subject of the contested decision, seeing that its jurisdiction concerns only 
penalties for infringements of the Consumer Code, which implements Directive 
2005/29. In the alternative, even if the AGCM was competent, it should have 
applied Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1169/2011 rather than the Consumer 
Code, with the result that it should have determined the fine in accordance with 
the criteria set out in Legislative Decree No 231/2017. 
11 Second, the appellant company alleges, in particular, infringement of Articles 2, 5, 
6 and 7 of Directive 2005/29, on the ground that the facts alleged against the 
appellant company do not constitute an unfair commercial practice. According to 
the appellant company, (a) the wheat growing area is not significant for the Italian 
consumer; (b) Regulation No 1169/2011 does not require the origin of the wheat 
to be indicated; (c) the information on the packaging in question is not liable to 
mislead the consumer as to the origin of the wheat; (d) the indication of the origin 
of the wheat does not form part of the material information for the purposes of 
Article 6 of Directive 2005/29; (e) even if wheat were to be regarded as a primary 
ingredient of pasta within the meaning of Article 26(3) of Regulation 
No 1169/2011, the indication of the origin of that ingredient is not mandatory in 
the case of trade marks and protected geographical indications, such as those in 
question in the present case. 
12 Third, the appellant company alleges infringement of, in particular, Articles 2, 5, 6 
and 7 of Directive 2005/29, Articles 38 and 39 of Regulation No 1169/2011, and 
Directive 2015/1535. That company maintains that the decreto interministeriale 
del 17 luglio 2017 (inter-ministerial order of 17 July 2017), which provides that 
the origin of the wheat must be indicated in packs of durum wheat pasta, is 
contrary to Regulation No 1169/2011. 
13 Fourth, the appellant company alleges infringement of, in particular, Articles 2, 5, 
6 and 7 of Directive 2005/29. According to the appellant, the conduct it was 
alleged to have committed in the contested decision does not constitute an unfair 
commercial practice within the meaning of Directive 2005/29, also because, in 
that decision, the AGCM referred to the concept of the average Italian consumer, 
whereas the rules on misleading consumers are fully harmonised and necessarily 
refer to the average European consumer. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-301/25 
 
6  
14 Fifth, the appellant company alleges infringement of the principle of 
proportionality, in so far as the amount of the fine imposed was determined 
without a detailed examination of the present case. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
15 The referring court takes the view that the conduct penalised by the contested 
decision is theoretically attributable, on the one hand, to the unfair commercial 
practices referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2005/29 and to the improper 
commercial practices referred to in Article 21 of the Consumer Code, but also, on 
the other hand, to the conduct prohibited by Article 7 of Regulation 
No 1169/2011. By the contested decision, which does not mention Regulation 
No 1169/2011, the AGCM penalised the appellant company on the ground that it 
had provided information which was not per se false, but which was given on the 
packaging of foodstuffs and on that company’s website in a manner capable of 
misleading the consumer as to the place of origin of the raw material. 
16 According to the referring court, as regards the prohibition on misleading the 
consumer with regard to the composition of a foodstuff or its ingredients, the 
provisions of Regulation No 1169/2011, Directive 2005/29 and the Italian 
legislation which implemented that Directive are not incompatible with each 
other, but complementary. 
17 The referring court points out that the penalties for infringements of Article 7 of 
Regulation No 1169/2011 are provided for by Legislative Decree No 231/2017 
and are distinct from the penalties for infringements of Directive 2005/29, which 
are laid down in the Consumer Code. Furthermore, under Legislative Decree 
No 231/2017, on the one hand, a body of the Ministry of Agricultural Policy is 
competent to impose penalties for infringements of Regulation No 1169/2011, 
while, on the other hand, the AGCM is competent to impose penalties for 
improper commercial practices. 
18 According to the referring court, the conduct penalised by the contested decision 
could theoretically fall within the scope of both Directive 2005/29 and Article 7 of 
Regulation No 1169/2011. Consequently, it is necessary to determine whether 
those provisions may be applied together or whether it is necessary to apply only 
one set of provisions and, if so, by what criterion the applicable law is to be 
determined. 
19 Since the provisions of Directive 2005/29 and Regulation No 1169/2011 are 
compatible with each other with regard to the prohibition on misleading 
consumers, in so far as the ingredients or composition of a foodstuff are 
concerned, Article 4(3) of Directive 2005/29 is not applicable in the present case. 
Furthermore, the objective pursued by Article 7 of Regulation No 1169/2011, 
namely consumer protection, is no different from the objective of Directive 
2005/29. 
LIDL ITALY 
 
7 
20 The referring court therefore questions whether the conduct referred to in Article 7 
of Regulation No 1169/2011 falls within the category of the unfair commercial 
practices referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2005/29 and is therefore subject to 
the application of the general principles of that directive, including Article 11 
thereof, or whether that conduct differs from the unfair commercial practices 
provided for in Directive 2005/29. That court also asks whether, in the field of 
foodstuffs, Article 7 of Regulation No 1169/2011 constitutes the only form of 
consumer protection against unfair commercial practices, or whether the consumer 
may also rely on the protection provided for by Directive 2005/29. 
21 In that regard, the referring court states that Legislative Decree No 231/2017 
provides for much lighter penalties for infringements of Article 7 of Regulation 
No 1169/2011 than those provided for in the Consumer Code for improper 
commercial practices. In particular, the penalties provided for by Legislative 
Decree No 231/2017 for infringements of Article 7 of Regulation No 1169/2011 
are not proportionate to the turnover of the economic operator to which they are 
applied, with the result that Legislative Decree No 231/2017 may be in conflict 
with Article 13 of Directive 2005/29. 
22 As regards the relevance of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in the 
main proceedings, the referring court points out that, in support of its appeal, the 
appellant company argues that Directive 2005/29 does not apply in the field of 
foodstuffs. If it were to be confirmed that Article 7 of Regulation No 1169/2011 is 
the only form of consumer protection in the food sector, the contested decision 
would be invalid on the ground that the AGCM did not have the power to adopt it.