Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:804
Date: 2024-09-26
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

summary, the Norwegian Government submits that Article 6a(1) and (2) PID is 
to be interpreted as meaning that a percentage mentioned in an announcement of a 
price reduction must relate only to the prior price within the meaning of 
Article 6a(2) PID. Whilst the wording of the Article alone is ambiguous, the aims 
of PID, inter alia increasing transparency, enforcement and consumer protection, 
weigh heavily towards such an interpretation. An interpretation that creates an 
incentive for the trader to list several prices is, in the Norwegian Government’s 
view, particularly ill-advised and does not realise the objective of Article 6a PID. 
(26) Moreover, the Article’s background, including the predecessor in the form of a 
proposed addition to Annex I UCPD, shows that the rule was always intended as 
clear and easily enforceable. Such an understanding will not only be to the benefit 
of consumers but also commercial interests. 
3.3 The Second Question 
(27) The Norwegian Government is of the opinion that the same reasoning as set forth 
above in Section 3.2 must entail that also the second question should be answered 
in the positive. Emphasis in advertising which is intended to stress the reasonable 
price of an offer, when used in an announcement of a price reduction, must relate 
to the prior price within the meaning of Article 6a(2) PID. 
(28) As with the first question, it is the Norwegian government’s view that the 
Referring Court’s proposed interpretation is detrimental to the object and purpose 
of Article 6a PID in several ways. Firstly, it will make it possible to advertise a 
price higher than the lowest price in the last 30 days as particularly reasonable. 
Such an advertisement is misleading, contrary to consumers interests and may 
easily be perceived as confusing. Again, the examples given by the Referring 
Court are illustrative. In figure 3, the offering price of EUR 1.49, with the attached 
“Preis-Highlight” is indeed higher than the prior price of EUR 1.39. 
(29) Secondly, it is the view of the Norwegian Government that an understanding of 
Article 6a PID that incentivises traders to use multiple prices in their adverts is not 
in accordance with the Article's object and purpose, see paragraph 12 et seq. 
above. It is therefore unlikely to be the correct interpretation. 
(30) Although the wording of Article 6a PID read in isolation may allow for both 
interpretations, its purpose and aim – clear and more easily enforceable rules and 
increased consumer protection – run counter to an understanding which allows for 
advertisements that stress the reasonable price of an offer, when used in an 
announcement of a price reduction, that relates to a price which is different to the 
prior price. 
 
2 Uttryck för rabatter och förmånligheter i marknadsföringen – Konkurrens- och konsumentverket (kkv.fi) 
 
9/9 
4 PROPOSED ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED 
(31) Based on the foregoing, the Norwegian Government respectfully submits that the 
questions set out by the Referring Court should be answered as follows: 
1. Article 6a(1) and (2) of the Price Indication Directive is to be 
interpreted as meaning that a percentage mentioned in an announcement of 
a price reduction may relate only to the prior price within the meaning of 
Article 6a(2) of the Price Indication Directive. 
2. Article 6a(1) and (2) of the Price Indication Directive is to be 
interpreted as meaning that emphasis in advertising which is intended to 
stress the reasonable price of an offer (such as the description of the price 
as a ‘Price Highlight’), where it is used in an announcement of a price 
reduction, must relate to the prior price within the meaning of Article 6a(2) 
of the Price Indication Directive. 
• • • 
Oslo, 29/09/2023 
Aleksander Tønnessen Fredrik Bergsjø 
Agent Agent