Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:380
Date: 2026-05-07
Language of the case: German

Translation C-238/25 – 1 
Case C-238/25 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
27 March 2025 
Referring court: 
Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
16 October 2024 
Applicant, respondent and respondent on a point of law: 
Bizerba SE & Co KG 
Defendant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: 
Land North Rhine-Westphalia 
  
Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany) 
ORDER 
BVerwG 8 C 8.22 
4 A 1362/21 
Delivered on 
16 October 2024 
[…] 
In the administrative proceedings 
Bizerba SE & Co KG, 
[…] 
[…] Balingen, 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 10. 2024 – CASE C-238/25 
 
2  
Applicant, respondent 
and respondent on a point of law, 
[…] 
v 
Land North Rhine-Westphalia, 
[…] 
[…] Cologne, 
Defendant, appellant 
and appellant on a point of law, 
[…] 
other party to the action: 
The representative of the federal interest 
at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court), 
[…] Berlin, 
the Eighth Chamber of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative 
Court) 
[…] on 16 October 2024 
[…] [information on the composition of the bench] 
hereby orders: 
[…] [information on national proceedings] 
The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU: 
Does a measuring instrument also constitute a non-automatic weighing 
instrument within the meaning of points 1 and 2 of Article 2 of [Directive 
2014/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 
2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the 
making available on the market of non-automatic weighing instruments 
(‘Directive 2014/31’)] if the weighing result is not printed or visibly 
displayed, but merely recorded? 
BIZERBA 
 
3 
G r o u n d s: 
I 
1 The parties involved are in dispute as to whether the applicant is allowed to mark 
an instrument manufactured by it with the CE marking in accordance with 
Directive 2014/31 already after completion of the manufacturing process in its 
factory or only at the place of use. 
2 The applicant is the manufacturer of a weight determination instrument that is 
integrated into the point-of-sale (POS) systems of other manufacturers for use in 
the retail trade and thus enables weighing during the checkout process. Weighing 
results are recorded by weighing software installed on the central processing and 
control unit (CPU) of the device. The data is forwarded to the POS computer via a 
non-reactive data interface belonging to the device. As a result of that control, the 
weighing values visible to users and customers are displayed on the POS system 
monitor via the PC-based software module licensed by the applicant. The POS 
system has so-called application software that enables the identification of the 
goods being weighed or the totalling of measurement results. 
3 In March 2016, the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (National Metrology 
Institute, Germany) initially issued an EC type-approval certificate valid until 
March 2019 for the ‘non-automatic price-computing weighing instrument for 
direct sales to the public’, type designation ‘CS300 …’ On that basis, the 
applicant had submitted an EU declaration of conformity. Following the expiry of 
the validity of the EU type-approval certificate, the National Metrology Institute 
last issued the applicant with an EU type-examination certificate valid until 
13 November 2028. Furthermore, the Regierungspräsidium Tübingen (Regional 
Council of Tübingen, Germany), as a recognised conformity assessment body, 
certified the quality assurance system submitted by the applicant in accordance 
with Directive 2014/31. With the recognition of the quality assurance system, the 
applicant is subsequently authorised to affix the metrology marking to the non-
automatic weighing instruments manufactured by it in accordance with the 
procedure set out in Annex II point 2, Module D (Conformity to type based on 
quality assurance of the production process) of Directive 2014/31. With reference 
to the EU type-approval certificate issued by the National Metrology Institute and 
the quality assurance system certified by the Regional Council of Tübingen, the 
applicant issued an EU declaration of conformity for the device model CS 300 on 
20 March 2020. 
4 After completion of the manufacturing process and after functional testing at its 
factory in Baden-Württemberg, the applicant affixes a label to its devices on 
which, inter alia, its name and address, the product designation of the device, the 
CE marking and the supplementary metrology marking are printed. The applicant 
sells its instruments, including the weighing instrument software and a licence for 
the use of the CS300-SD display software, to a manufacturer of POS systems and 
POS terminals, among others. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 10. 2024 – CASE C-238/25 
 
4  
5 In February 2019, during an inspection of such a POS system at a retailer’s 
premises, an employee of the defendant discovered that the applicant’s metrology 
marking showed the year 2016, although the device had only been put into 
operation in 2017. When asked by the defendant, the applicant stated that its 
procedure complied with the requirements of the European Union and German 
verification law and had been agreed with the conformity assessment body. The 
defendant replied that the applicant’s marking practice suggested that the POS 
system as a measuring instrument had already complied with all EU requirements 
since 2016. However, that is incorrect because the weighing module was only 
connected to the POS system in 2017 and only then was a measuring instrument 
placed on the market. In principle, marking may only take place after the 
conformity assessment procedure has been completed. 
6 In response to an enquiry from the defendant, the Regional Council of Tübingen 
stated that the conformity assessment of the weighing instrument takes place 
during the entire production process. Conformity testing is carried out in 
accordance with Module D as defined in Annex II point 2 of Directive 2014/31. 
The marking is affixed to the load receptor during the production process. Placing 
on the market takes place after final acceptance in the respective retail market. 
The defendant replied that the applicant’s product was not yet a measuring 
instrument because, for that to be the case, an indication was mandatory. It also 
does not consider the affixing of the CE marking, the supplementary metrology 
marking and the number of the conformity assessment body during the production 
phase to be in conformity with the directive. In response, the conformity 
assessment body stated that an exact time of affixing the metrology marking to a 
non-automatic weighing instrument is not mandatory if a manufacturer chooses 
conformity assessment according to modules B and D. 
7 By order of 31 January 2020, after hearing the applicant, the defendant prohibited 
it as of 1 April 2020 from using load receptors to which the CE marking or the 
supplementary metrology marking or the CE marking together with the metrology 
marking had already been affixed prior to the completion of a conformity 
assessment for the manufacture of measuring instruments in North Rhine-
Westphalia. To justify the order based on Paragraph 50(2) of the Gesetz über das 
Inverkehrbringen und die Bereitstellung von Messgeräten auf dem Markt, ihre 
Verwendung und Eichung sowie über Fertigpackungen, Mess- und Eichgesetz 
(Law on the placement and provision of measuring instruments on the market, 
their use and calibration as well as on prepackaging; ‘MessEG’), it stated that the 
applicant, as the manufacturer, was responsible for ensuring that its measuring 
instruments made available on the market met the essential instrument-specific 
requirements. Those requirements included a successfully completed conformity 
assessment and the relevant marking. Based on point 4 of Paragraph 30 of the 
MessEG, Paragraph 14(6) of the Verordnung über das Inverkehrbringen und die 
Bereitstellung von Messgeräten auf dem Markt sowie über ihre Verwendung und 
Eichung (Ordinance on the placement and provision of measuring instruments on 
the market, their use and calibration; ‘MessEV’) stipulates that the marking may 
only be affixed to measuring devices that meet the essential requirements of 
BIZERBA 
 
5 
Paragraph 6 of the MessEG. Whether a device fulfils the requirements is only 
proven by a successful conformity assessment procedure. The applicant had 
already affixed the CE marking and the supplementary metrology marking ‘M 16’ 
to certain POS weighing instruments in 2016, although the conformity assessment 
procedure was only completed in 2017. 
8 The applicant brought an action against that order. The Verwaltungsgericht 
(Administrative Court, Germany) set aside the administrative order. It ruled that 
the order was substantively unlawful. There had been no substantive breach of the 
relevant requirements for non-automatic weighing instruments, nor had the 
applicant substantively breached any provisions of the conformity assessment 
procedure. In particular, a breach does not arise from the fact that the combined 
weighing and software module in question does not itself have an indication. In 
any event, at the point in time at which the product was put onto the market to 
determine mass for the purposes of commercial transactions, it had an indication 
due to the combination with the POS system. 
9 The Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court, Germany) dismissed 
the defendant’s appeal against that decision. It ruled that the administrative order 
was substantively unlawful. It considers that a non-automatic weighing instrument 
can also fulfil the instrument-specific requirements in accordance with Annex I to 
Directive 2014/31 if, when the weighing instrument is placed on the market, the 
manufacturer is able to ensure that it would satisfy requirements that are 
applicable for the entire service life when it is used in commercial transactions 
from the time of putting into service. The directive makes a temporal distinction 
between the manufacturer’s obligations when placing an instrument on the 
market, that is to say, the first making available of an instrument in the form of its 
first supply for distribution or use on the Union market in the course of a 
commercial activity, and the essential requirements to be fulfilled from the time of 
a possible putting into service of weighing instruments. That temporal 
differentiation set out in the directive enables manufacturers to place on the 
market and thus trade in weighing instruments which, although they cannot be 
used on their own, are guaranteed to fulfil the essential instrument-specific 
requirements laid down in Annex I to the Directive when used for their intended 
purpose – also with regard to the visual indication of the weighing results – as 
soon as they are placed on the market due to their technical characteristics, the 
intended use determined by the manufacturer and procedural safeguards provided 
by the conformity assessment procedure. That understanding of the standard is in 
line with international standards. The applicant was not merely placing the 
instruments at issue on the market as weighing modules for the further 
manufacture of a non-automatic weighing instrument, but as independent 
weighing instruments which were to be used for the determination of price on the 
basis of mass for the purposes of direct sales to the public. 
10 In the appeal on a point of law, the defendant argues that the interpretation of the 
provisions of Directive 2014/31 by the court of appeal is incompatible with EU 
law and federal law. At the heart of the dispute is the question of when the CE 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 10. 2024 – CASE C-238/25 
 
6  
marking required by Directive 2014/31, the supplementary metrology marking 
and the number of the certified body may or must be affixed to the device. The 
response to that question depends on whether the applicant’s weighing module, 
which does not have its own indicating device, can already be regarded as a 
weighing instrument within the meaning of Directive 2014/31 and may therefore 
be placed on the market. The weighing module is only one component of the 
weighing instrument. The directive does not regulate the placing on the market of 
such components and does not recognise the term ‘module’, which comes from 
DIN EN 45501:2015. The directive specifies in several places that a weighing 
instrument must indicate the measured result. That interpretation follows from the 
purpose of each weighing operation. It is not possible to determine the specific 
weight of the weighed item, that is to say, to measure it in the legal sense, with the 
weighing module on its own. The measured value can only be visualised with the 
aid of an indication. The directive also clearly specifies that an indication is a 
mandatory requirement for the conformity assessment of a weighing instrument. 
The applicant did not place a weighing instrument on the market, but only its 
weighing module, which may not be marked in accordance with Directive 
2014/31. It is also not the case that the instrument-specific requirements of 
Directive 2014/31 only have to be fulfilled once the instrument is put into service. 
The conformity assessment and subsequent marking were carried out on the basis 
of the directive. The instrument must first fulfil all technical requirements; only 
then may the markings be affixed to the device. 
11 The applicant seeks to have the contested judgment upheld. 
II 
12 The proceedings are stayed pending the preliminary ruling from the Court of 
Justice on the basis of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. The interpretation 
of points 1 and 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2014/31/EU of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to the making available on the market of non-automatic 
weighing instruments (OJ 2014 L 96, p. 107) is not so obvious as to leave no 
scope for any reasonable doubt and it could be concluded that the matter is equally 
obvious for the courts of the other EU Member States (on that criterion, see Court 
of Justice, judgment of the Grand Chamber of 6 October 2021, Consorzio, 
C-561/19, EU:C:2021:799, paragraph 40). 
13 The question referred is relevant to the outcome of the appeal on a point of law. 
The defendant’s appeal on a point of law is admissible. The applicant’s action to 
set aside a transaction is also admissible. The merit of the appeal on a point of law 
depends on whether the product manufactured by the applicant in its factory 
constitutes a ‘non-automatic weighing instrument’ within the meaning of points 1 
and 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2014/31, which may be CE-marked as soon as the 
manufacturing process is completed, even though it does not have an indication 
until it is installed in a third party’s POS system. 
BIZERBA 
 
7 
14 The relevant national law reads as follows: 
MessEG (extract) 
‘Paragraph 50 Market surveillance measures 
(1) The market surveillance authorities shall carry out appropriate checks, 
by appropriate sampling, on an appropriate scale, to verify that measuring 
instruments and other measuring devices fulfil the requirements of section 2 
and prepackages and other sales units fulfil the requirements of section 4. 
(2) The market surveillance authorities shall take the necessary measures 
if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the products do not fulfil the 
said requirements. … 
Paragraph 50a Formal non-compliance 
(1) The market surveillance authority must require the relevant economic 
operator to rectify the non-compliance if it finds that 
1. … 
2. the conformity marking or the supplementary metrology marking was 
affixed in accordance with an ordinance pursuant to point 4 of Paragraph 30 
in non-compliance with Paragraph 6(4), 
… 
(2) If the non-compliance persists, the market surveillance authority must 
take the necessary measures to restrict or prohibit the measuring instrument 
being made available on the market or to ensure that it is recalled or 
withdrawn. 
Paragraph 6 Placing measuring instruments on the market 
(1) Subject to subsection 4, measuring instruments may only be placed on 
the market if the requirements set out in Paragraphs 2 to 5 are met. 
(2) Measuring instruments shall fulfil the essential requirements, including 
compliance with maximum permissible errors. Essential requirements within 
the meaning of the first sentence are the requirements 
1. laid down in the ordinance pursuant to point 1 of Paragraph 30 or 
2. which must be observed in order to comply with the state of the art to 
ensure accurate measurement results and measurements, unless more 
detailed specifications are made in the ordinance pursuant to point 1 of 
Paragraph 30. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 10. 2024 – CASE C-238/25 
 
8  
(3) In order to prove that a measuring instrument fulfils the essential 
requirements within the meaning of Paragraph 2, a conformity assessment 
specified in an ordinance in accordance with point 3 of Paragraph 30 must 
have been successfully carried out and a declaration of conformity must be 
available. The declaration of conformity must meet the requirements of the 
ordinance in accordance with point 3 of Paragraph 30. 
(4) The conformity of a measuring instrument must be confirmed by the 
marking specified in an ordinance in accordance with point 4 of 
Paragraph 30. 
(5) …’ 
MessEV (extract) 
Paragraph 8 Instrument-specific essential requirements 
(1) Subject to subparagraph 3, the measuring instruments or components 
referred to below within the meaning of Directive 2014/32/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the 
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making 
available on the market of measuring instruments (OJ 2014 L 96, p. 149), as 
amended, and within the meaning of Directive 2014/31/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of 
the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market 
of non-automatic weighing instruments (OJ 2014 L 96, p. 107), as amended, 
must meet the instrument-specific requirements to which reference is made 
in Annex 3, Table 1, column 3 for the respective measuring instruments: 
… 
11. Non-automatic weighing instruments (short form: ‘EU weighing 
instruments – non-automatic’). 
Paragraph 9 Conformity assessment procedure 
(1) Subject to subparagraph 4, the conformity of a measuring instrument 
with the essential requirements for the measuring instrument shall be 
confirmed by a conformity assessment procedure in accordance with 
Annex 4; confirmation may only be issued if the requirements of Annex 4 
Part A are also met. Subject to subparagraph 4, the conformity assessment 
procedures specified in Annex 3, Table 1, column 4 shall be applied to the 
measuring instruments referred to in Paragraph 8. For all other measuring 
instruments, the manufacturer can choose which conformity assessment 
procedure from Annex 4 it wishes to use for the demonstration. The 
conformity assessment procedure selected must be appropriate for assessing 
conformity, taking into account the metrological complexity of the 
measuring instrument. 
BIZERBA 
 
9 
(2) It is presumed that a conformity assessment procedure is appropriate 
for assessing the conformity of the measuring instrument if the manufacturer 
1. selects the conformity assessment procedure from the combination of 
modules B and D or from the combination of modules B and F from 
Annex 4 … 
Annex 3 (regarding Paragraph 8, the second sentence of Paragraph 9(1), 
Paragraph 9(4)) Device-specific requirements and applicable conformity 
assessment procedures for individual measuring instruments 
Table 1 
References to Directive 2014/31 and Directive 2014/32 
 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 
Numbering 
pursuant to 
Paragraph 8(1) 
Brief 
designation 
Definition 
according to 
Specific 
requirements 
within the 
meaning of 
Paragraph 8(1) 
are regulated 
in 
Conformity 
assessment 
procedure within 
the meaning of 
the second 
sentence of 
Paragraph 9(1) 
(modules 
according to 
Annex 4) 
…     
Point 11 EU 
weighing 
instruments 
- 
 non-
automatic 
Points 1 and 
2 of Article 2 
of Directive 
2014/31
  
Annex I to 
Directive 
2014/31 
B and F or B and 
D or G; 
additionally, for 
non-automatic 
weighing 
instruments in 
which no 
electronic device 
is used and 
whose load 
measuring device 
does not use a 
spring to equalise 
the applied load: 
F1 or D1 
In addition, the 
special 
requirements for 
non-automatic 
weighing 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 10. 2024 – CASE C-238/25 
 
10  
instruments in 
accordance with 
point 4 of Part A 
of Annex 4 must 
be observed 
 
15 Under national regulations, measuring instruments may only be placed on the 
market pursuant to the first clause of the first sentence of Paragraph 6(1) and (2)of 
the MessEG if they fulfil the essential requirements. Pursuant to point 1 of the 
second sentence of Paragraph 6(2) of the MessEG, those requirements are laid 
down in the Measures and Verification Ordinance. According to Paragraph 6(3) of 
the MessEG, evidence that a measuring instrument meets the essential 
requirements is provided by a declaration of conformity issued following an 
assessment of conformity with the requirements of the MessEV. The essential 
requirements which non-automatic weighing instruments must fulfil are 
determined in accordance with point 11 of Paragraph 8(1) of the MessEV, read in 
conjunction with point 11 of Table 1 in Annex 3 to the MessEV in accordance 
with Annex I to Directive 2014/31. 
16 The scope of Directive 2014/31 extends to ‘all non-automatic weighing 
instruments’ in accordance with its Article 1(1), that is, it is based on a weighing 
instrument within the meaning of points 1 and 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2014/31. 
The defendant assumes that it is mandatory for such a weighing instrument to 
have an indication. In contrast, the court of appeal assumes that a weighing 
instrument within the meaning of the directive already exists if the weight 
determined after placing the goods to be weighed on the load receptor is recorded 
by means of software and only displayed visually after connection to an external 
display (such as a POS system). Accordingly, the court of appeal classifies the 
product manufactured by the applicant and labelled with the CE marking at its 
factory as a weighing instrument and not just a weighing module. Which 
interpretation is correct cannot be answered with sufficient clarity on the basis of 
Directive 2014/31 and the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union. 
17 1. In the opinion of this Chamber, the interpretation of Directive 2014/31 
according to its wording as well as its meaning and purpose suggests that an 
indication is a necessary component of a non-automatic weighing instrument 
within the meaning of Directive 2014/31. 
18 (a) The wording of the directive contains clear indications in favour of that 
understanding. Point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2014/31 defines a weighing 
instrument as a measuring instrument serving to determine the mass of a body by 
using the action of gravity on that body. Point 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2014/31 
uses the terms ‘non-automatic weighing instrument’ and ‘instrument’ 
synonymously and defines them as a weighing instrument requiring the 
intervention of an operator during weighing. The wording ‘to determine the mass’ 
BIZERBA 
 
11 
used in point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2014/31 indicates that the (determined) 
measurement result obtained must also be indicated, but says nothing about how 
that is to be done. The same applies to Article 1(2)(a) and (f) of Directive 
2014/31. The provision describes the categories of use of non-automatic weighing 
instruments and also uses the wording ‘determination of the mass’ (point a) and 
‘determination of price on the basis of mass’ (point f). 
19 Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 2014/31, instruments used 
or intended to be used for the applications listed in points (a) to (f) of Article 1(2) 
are to satisfy the essential requirements set out in Annex I. Accordingly, non-
automatic weighing instruments which are used for the determination of price on 
the basis of mass for the purposes of direct sales to the public in accordance with 
Article 1(2)(f) of the Directive must also fulfil the requirements of Annex I. The 
essential requirements laid down therein relate to non-automatic weighing 
instruments and not only to their parts. 
20 The wording of the preliminary observation to Annex I to Directive 2014/31 
assumes that an instrument may include, or be connected to, more than one 
indicating or printing device used for the applications listed in points (a) to (f) of 
Article 1(2). It is subsequently stated ‘… if the weighing results are printed or 
recorded correctly and indelibly by a part of the instrument which meets the 
essential requirements and the results are accessible to both parties concerned by 
the measurement’. The wording ‘printed or recorded correctly and indelibly’ 
could indicate that the recording of the measurement results alone is sufficient to 
assume the existence of a non-automatic weighing instrument. However, the 
following sentence clarifies that in the case of instruments for direct sales to the 
public, the indicating and printing devices for sellers and buyers must comply 
with the essential requirements. The prepositional phrase ‘in the case of’ rather 
suggests that the indication is necessarily part of the instrument, that is, according 
to the terminology of point 2 of Article 2 of the Directive, part of the non-
automatic weighing instrument. 
21 The wording of various provisions in Annex I provides further points of reference 
for the interpretation of Directive 2014/31. In the chapter on metrological 
requirements, point 4 of Annex I addresses the accuracy of the instruments and 
refers to ‘error of indication’ and ‘digital indication’ in point 4.1. According to 
point 5, weighing results of an instrument shall be repeatable, and shall be 
reproducible by the ‘other indicating devices used’. Point 7.5 uses the term ‘zero 
indication’. According to point 8.1, one of the general requirements is that design 
and construction of the device shall be such that the instruments will preserve 
their metrological qualities when properly used and installed and when used in an 
environment for which they are intended and that the value of the mass must be 
‘indicated’. According to point 8.3, that requirement shall be met on a lasting 
basis during a period of time that is normal in view of the intended use of the 
instrument. According to the second paragraph of point 8.3, digital electronic 
devices shall always exercise adequate control, inter alia, of the ‘indicating 
device’. Point 8.6 requires the instruments to be designed to permit ready 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 10. 2024 – CASE C-238/25 
 
12  
execution of the statutory controls laid down by the directive. Point 9 stipulates 
that the ‘indication of the weighing results and other weight values’ shall be 
accurate, unambiguous and non-misleading; the ‘indication’ must permit easy 
reading under normal conditions of use. In addition, ‘indication’ shall be 
impossible above a defined maximum capacity. According to point 13, the 
instruments may have one or more tare devices which shall result in accurate 
zeroing. Point 14 contains additional requirements for instruments for direct sales 
to the public. Those shall show all essential information about the weighing 
operation and, in the case of price-indicating instruments, shall clearly ‘show’ the 
customer the price calculation of the product to be purchased. The price to pay, if 
‘indicated’, shall be accurate. Price-computing instruments shall ‘display’ the 
essential indications long enough for the customer to read them properly. That 
wording suggests that the display is a necessary component of the device, that is 
to say, of the non-automatic weighing instrument. Moreover, instruments shall 
bear no characteristics that can cause, directly or indirectly, ‘indications’ the 
interpretation of which is not easy or straightforward. Instruments similar to those 
normally used for direct sales to the public which do not satisfy the requirements 
of that point must carry near to the display the indelible marking ‘Not to be used 
for direct sale to the public’. 
22 The provisions of Annex I to Directive 2014/31 presented above use the term 
‘indication’ in direct connection with the term ‘instrument’, which point 2 of 
Article 2 of the directive defines as synonymous with the term ‘non-automatic 
weighing instrument’. That connection could also suggest that, according to the 
understanding of the directive, a non-automatic weighing instrument necessarily 
includes an indication and that mere recording of the measurement result is not 
sufficient. 
23 (b) The objectives pursued by Directive 2014/31, which, according to the settled 
case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is also necessary to 
consider for the purpose of interpreting Union legislation (see Court of Justice, 
judgment of 2 September 2015, Surmačs, C-127/14, EU:C:2015:522, 
paragraph 28 and the case-law cited) suggest that the term ‘non-automatic 
weighing instrument’ within the meaning of points 1 and 2 of Article 2 of 
Directive 2014/31 presupposes an indication. The objective formulated in recital 5 
of protecting the public against incorrect results of weighing operations by means 
of non-automatic weighing instruments when used for certain categories of 
applications serves consumer protection. The directive ensures a high level of 
protection of the public interests covered by the directive and guarantees fair 
competition on the Union market (recitals 7 and 30). Another objective of the 
directive is to guarantee the functioning of the internal market (recital 47). The 
objectives of consumer protection, protection of the internal market and 
guaranteeing fair competition expressed in those recitals tend to support an 
interpretation that assumes a non-automatic weighing instrument within the 
meaning of points 1 and 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2014/31 only if the 
measurement result is not merely recorded but visibly indicated. In particular, the 
objective of consumer protection, which is intended to protect the public against 
BIZERBA 
 
13 
incorrect results of weighing operations, could not be effectively achieved without 
indicating the measurement result and thus enabling the customer to check the 
results of weighing operations. 
24 2. The question of the significance to be attached to the terminology used by the 
International Organisation of Legal Metrology (OIML) for the purposes of 
interpreting Directive 2014/31 has not been clearly resolved. In the opinion of this 
Chamber, the statement ‘The terminology used is that of the International 
Organisation of Legal Metrology’ preceding the preliminary observation to 
Annex I expresses the fact that Annex I merely uses the terminology of the OIML, 
without it having any further significance for the interpretation of the directive. 
That is also indicated by the English and French versions of the text, which in that 
respect speak more clearly and expressly of the use of the terminology (‘The 
terminology used is that of the International Organisation of Legal Metrology.’; 
‘La terminologie utilisée est celle de l’Organisation internationale de métrologie 
légale.’). The reference in Annex I thus refers to the terminology of International 
Recommendation OIML R 76-1 Edition 2006, which is presented in the first 
chapter of the recommendation (T.1 to T.9, pages 5 to 24). For its part, the OIML 
recommendation refers in the opening of the section headed ‘Terminology’ (p. 5) 
to the International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology (VIM) 
and the International Vocabulary of Legal Metrology (VIML) which were 
compiled in collaboration with the International Organisation of Legal Metrology. 
25 The provisions laid down therein include the following specifications: According 
to entry 3.1 of the VIM, a measuring instrument is a device used for making 
measurements alone or in conjunction with one or more supplementary devices. 
That could be understood to mean that it is permissible for additional devices – in 
that case the indication – to be added in order for a measuring instrument to be 
complete. According to note 2 to entry 3.1. of the VIM, a measuring instrument 
may be an indicating measuring instrument or a material measure. In entry 3.3 of 
the VIM, an indicating measuring instrument is described as a measuring 
instrument providing an output signal carrying information about the value of the 
quantity being measured. According to note 2 to entry 3.3 of the VIM, an output 
signal may be represented in visual or acoustic form. It may also be transmitted to 
one or more other devices. Comparable wording can be found in note 1 to entry 
4.1 VIM. In the case of a displaying measuring instrument, the output signal is 
presented in visual form (entry 3.4 of the VIM). The International Vocabulary of 
Legal Metrology (VIML) also states under entry 0.03 note 1 that ‘an indication 
may be presented in visual or acoustic form or may be transferred to another 
device.’ According to entry 5.05 of the VIML, a ‘primary indication’ is defined as 
an ‘indication’ (‘displayed, printed or memorised’) ‘subject to legal metrological 
control’. Thus, for the term ‘indication’, mere memorisation of the measured value 
is sufficient here. 
26 On the basis of that international terminology, a broader understanding of an 
indication than that of Directive 2014/31 appears possible. Accordingly, not only 
the visual indication or the printout of the measured value, but also its 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 10. 2024 – CASE C-238/25 
 
14  
memorisation could be understood to be an indication. However, in the view of 
this Chamber, the international metrological terminology of the OIML is not to be 
applied in the sense of an authentic interpretation aid when interpreting Directive 
2014/31 and therefore cannot lead to an extended understanding of the term 
compared to the content of the directive. The extension of the concept of 
indication to mere memorisation of the measured value would not meet the 
objectives of the directive set out above, in particular the objective of consumer 
protection. That is because memorised measured values are hardly accessible to 
the control options required by Annex I to the directive. It should also be 
considered that the terminology developed by the OIML is general terminology 
that applies to a large number of different types of measuring instruments. The 
recommendations of the International Organisation of Legal Metrology referred to 
in Annex I to the directive are therefore unlikely to be of decisive importance in 
the interpretation of Directive 2014/31. However, the significance of the explicit 
reference to the International Organisation of Legal Metrology in Annex I to the 
directive has not yet been unambiguously clarified in the case-law of the Court of 
Justice of the European Union. 
27 The same applies to DIN EN 45501:2015 – Metrological aspects of non-automatic 
weighing instruments, additionally consulted by the court of appeal, a reference to 
which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 
11 September 2015 (OJ 2015 C 300, p. 3). DIN EN 45501:2015 defines the term 
non-automatic weighing instrument under T.1.2 and in note 1 establishes a 
connection between the acceptance of the weighing result and the observation of 
the indication. Note 1. T.1.3 defines the indication of a weighing instrument as the 
quantity value indicated by a weighing instrument. According to the note to T.1.3, 
the terms ‘indication’, ‘indicate’ or ‘indicating’ include representations on an 
indicating device and/or a printout. According to T.1.3.1, ‘principal indications’ 
are indications, signals and symbols which are subject to the requirements of that 
European standard. According to that, the term ‘main indication’ should not only 
include the visual display of the weighing result, but also its memorisation. In that 
interpretation, the term would go beyond the understanding of Directive 2014/31 
set out above. 
28 In the view of this Chamber, that discrepancy between Directive 2014/31 and the 
content of the harmonised standard, which cannot be ruled out, means that no 
unequivocal answer to the question raised is possible and a referral to the Court of 
Justice is therefore necessary. In that regard, it should, in the first place, be 
recalled that it should follow from the hierarchy of standards in Community law 
that a harmonised provision cannot deviate from the requirements of a legal act of 
secondary legislation (on the nature of such standardisation as part of Union law, 
see most recently Court of Justice, judgment of 5 March 2024, Public Resource, 
C-588/21 P, EU:C:2024:201, paragraph 70). At the same time, with its 
communication of the harmonised rule in the Official Journal in accordance with 
Article 10(5) second sentence and (6) of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European 
standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and 
BIZERBA 
 
15 
Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 
2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision 
No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2012 L316 
p.12, the Commission expresses its view that the harmonised standard complies 
with Directive 2014/31. 
[…]