Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:1030
Date: 2025-12-18
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Translation  C-745/24 – 1 
Case C-745/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
24 October 2024 
Referring court: 
Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
24 September 2024 
Applicant: 
Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV 
Defendant: 
Globus Handelshof GmbH (‘Globus Handelshof’) 
  
Landgericht Saarbrücken (Regional Court, Saarbrücken, Germany) 
Order 
[…] 
In the case of 
Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV 
Applicant: 
[…] 
v 
Globus Handelshof 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-745/24 
 
2  
Defendant: 
[…] 
the Regional Court, Saarbrücken […] decided on 24 September 2024: 
The proceedings are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling on the following questions pursuant to 
Article 267(1)(a) and (2) TFEU: 
1. Must EU law, in particular as regards Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic 
production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council 
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (OJ 2018 L 150, p. 1, be interpreted as 
meaning that advertising leaflets for a commercial chain, distributed to 
consumers’ households and covering, in addition to a multitude of other 
products, organic products within the meaning of that regulation, must 
include an indication of the code number of the control authority or 
control body, that is to say, the body to which the operator that carried 
out the last production or preparation operation is subject? 
(2)(a) Must point (52) of Article 3 of Regulation 2018/848 be 
interpreted as meaning that any ‘advertising’ for an organic product 
within the meaning of point (53) of Article 3 of the Regulation is also 
‘labelling’ of that product within the meaning of point (52) of Article 3 
of the Regulation? 
(b) Does it follow from Article 32(1) of Regulation 2018/848, with its 
reference to Article 30(1) of that regulation, that there is an obligation 
to indicate the code number of the control body even for advertising 
that is geographically separated from the product where, in the 
labelling, advertising material or commercial documents such a product 
is described in terms suggesting to the purchaser that the foodstuff 
derives from organic production? 
(c) Does this also apply where an advertising retailer promotes 
products of a manufacturer which (may) come from different factories 
and are examined by different control bodies? 
(d) If Questions 2(a) to (c) cannot be clearly answered by yes or no: 
According to which criteria, if any, is a differentiation to be made 
between 2(a) and 2(b)? 
(A) The referring court: 
[…] [Information about the referring court] 
GLOBUS HANDELSHOF 
 
3 
(B) The main proceedings 
I. The applicant asserts a claim for an injunction based on unfair competition 
law against the defendant in relation to advertising brochures for organic products 
including an organic lemonade. 
1. (a) The applicant is a registered association whose purpose is to combat unfair 
competition. It is registered in Germany on the list of associations which meet the 
organisational conditions for combating unfair commercial practices, as provided 
for by law. 
(b) The defendant is a company in the retail trading group Globus St. Wendel. It 
includes various companies operating, inter alia, large superstores (‘hypermarkets’ 
[selling] food and non-food articles) throughout Germany. 
2. The defendant advertised the offers at issue in Gera and the surrounding area 
in its brochure entitled ‘Globus Echt gut gemacht Gera’ in the editions of Monday, 
12 February to Saturday, 17 February 2024 (calendar week 7), Monday, 
5 February to Saturday, 10 February 2024 (calendar week 6), Monday, 29 January 
to Saturday, 3 February 2024 (calendar week 5) and Monday, 22 January to 
Saturday, 27 January 2024 (calendar week 4). That brochure is a printed leaflet 
with several pages that is distributed to all households located in the market 
catchment area and is also available in the market itself. In it, the defendant 
promotes a wide variety of products from its range of products as a stationary 
hypermarket. The customer can therefore buy the advertised products only on the 
spot in the defendant’s shop. 
The [brochures submitted] by the applicant as Annexes K4-7 are attached to this 
request by way of illustration to the Court of Justice. 
In the calendar week 7 edition of its brochure, the defendant promotes, inter alia, 
the product ‘Kanne organic bread drink’ on page 13, ‘Vio organic lemonade’ on 
page 14 and ‘Hipp Hippis organic squeeze pouches’ on page 15; in the calendar 
week 6 edition, it promotes the products ‘Hainich organic red cabbage with apple’ 
or ‘organic sauerkraut’ on page 16, ‘3 Talente organic Riesling Rheinhessen 
German Quality Wine’ on page 17 and ‘Alete organic menu’ on page 18; in the 
calendar week 5 edition, it promotes the products ‘Alnatura organic wheat flour’ 
on page 15 and ‘Yogi Tea’ on page 18, and in the calendar week 4 edition, it 
promotes the products ‘Frusano organic rice crispies’ and ‘Frusano Janosch 
organic bear friends’ on page 6, and ‘Alnavit organic pure direct pomegranate 
juice’, ‘Grünland organic vegetable juice’, ‘Alnatura organic agave syrup’ and 
‘Buenting organic herbal or fruit tea[‘] on page 12. 
In each product designation, the defendant uses the term ‘organic’ and the ‘EU 
organic logo’. The leaflet does not indicate either the control body to which the 
operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject or 
its code number in connection with the use of the term ‘organic’ or the indication 
of the ‘EU organic logo’. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-745/24 
 
4  
Some examples of the contested advertising are shown here: 
 
 
 
The applicant does not claim that the respective products themselves, in the form 
in which they can be purchased in the shop, are incorrectly labelled. It merely 
criticises the fact that the control body’s number is not indicated in the advertising 
leaflets. 
GLOBUS HANDELSHOF 
 
5 
II. The applicant is of the opinion that, with the advertising at issue, the 
defendant is in breach of the abovementioned labelling obligations under EU law. 
It is of the opinion that, when advertising using the EU organic logo and terms 
such as ‘organic’ in a leaflet, the defendant should already indicate in the same 
place the control body and its corresponding code number. Point (52) of Article 3 
of Regulation 2018/848 covers any particulars ‘relating to that product’, that is to 
say, including advertising such as that at issue in this case. 
It is decisive for resolving the dispute whether Article 32(1), with its reference to 
Article 30(1) of Regulation 2018/848, lays down a (comprehensive) obligation to 
indicate the code number of the control body where, in the labelling, advertising 
material or commercial documents such a product is described in terms suggesting 
to the purchaser that the foodstuff derives from organic production. The applicant 
is of the opinion that advertising must contain the code number, because the term 
‘labelling’ within the meaning of Article 30(1) of Regulation 2018/848 includes 
both labelling as defined in point (52) of Article 3 of the Regulation and 
advertising as defined in point (53) of Article 3 of the Regulation. According to 
the applicant, this is already apparent from the legislature’s clear reference by the 
provision of Article 32(1) only to ‘labelling’ as defined in Article 30(1) of the 
Regulation. The wording of that provision is clear in that regard. If the legislature 
had intended to refer to labelling as defined in point (52) of Article 3 of the 
Regulation, reference would have been made to that definition. Clearly, the 
legislature intended to create an obligation to inform consumers about the 
competent control body not only for labelling in the strict (narrow) sense, but also 
for ‘labelling’ in the broader sense, namely as defined in Article 30(1) of 
Regulation 2018/848. 
The applicant points out, in that regard, that the English and French versions of 
those provisions are clearer than the German version. 
The meaning and purpose of those provisions also militate in favour of its view. 
The applicant claims that the Regional Court should: 
1. Order the defendant to refrain, on pain of a fine of up to EUR 250 000, 
or, in the alternative, a term of imprisonment or a term of imprisonment not 
exceeding six months of the managers of the partner personally liable, from 
offering for sale and advertising to end consumers in the course of trade, 
foodstuffs pre-packaged in accordance with organic principles, in particular 
‘Kanne organic bread drink’ and/or ‘Vio organic lemonade’ and/or ‘Hipp 
Hippis organic squeeze pouches’ and/or ‘Hainich organic red cabbage with 
apple or organic sauerkraut’ and/or ‘3 Talente organic Riesling Rheinhessen 
German Quality Wine’ and/or ‘Alete organic menu’ and/or ‘Alnatura 
organic wheat flour’ and/or ‘Yogi Tea’ and/or ‘Frusano organic rice 
crispies’ and/or ‘Frusano Janosch organic bear friends’ and/or ‘Alnavit 
organic pure direct pomegranate juice’ and/or ‘Grünland organic vegetable 
juice’ and/or ‘Alnatura organic agave syrup’ and/or ‘Buenting organic 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-745/24 
 
6  
herbal or fruit tea’ with the indication ‘organic’ and/or the ‘EU organic logo’ 
without also indicating the code number of the control authority or control 
body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation 
operation is subject, 
if that is done 
as was done for the designated products in the brochure ‘Globus Echt gut 
gemacht Gera-Trebnitz’ edition of Monday, 12 February to Saturday, 
17 February 2024 (calendar week 7) on pages 13, 14 and 15 (Annex K 4), 
the edition of Monday, 5 February to Saturday, 10 February 2024 (calendar 
week 6) on pages 16, 17 and 18 (Annex K 5), the edition of Monday, 
29 January to Saturday 3 February 2024 (calendar week 5) on pages 15 and 
18 (Annex K 6) and the edition of Monday, 22 January to Saturday, 
27 January 2024 (calendar week 4) on pages 6 and 12 (Annex K 7). 
2. Order the defendant to pay to the applicant EUR 238, together with 
interest on that amount as of the date of service of the application at the rate 
of 5% above the base rate. 
3. The defendant contends that the 
action should be dismissed. 
It is of the opinion that it is sufficient, under European law, for the indication of 
the control body and the corresponding number to appear on the product to be sold 
itself. 
Article 3 of Regulation 834/2007 makes a distinction in points (52) and (53) 
between labelling and advertising. This should be taken into account. The 
provision of Article 30(1) of the Regulation is therefore unclear and does not 
mean that the terms labelling and advertising are to be equated. The strict 
obligations in connection with organically farmed products should be 
implemented on the basis of actual physical flows of goods and the documents 
accompanying them, but not detached in the context of general advertising 
indications. 
The indication in advertising is not workable in practice. For some manufacturers, 
especially larger ones, such as of lemonade, the product advertised in a similar 
way throughout the Federal Republic of Germany comes from different sources 
certified by different control bodies. At the time when the leaflet is produced, the 
defendant is not yet in a position to know precisely from which warehouse of the 
manufacturer the lemonade will actually be delivered. It is therefore not in a 
position to provide that information. 
4. The Chamber sees no potential for agreement. This is a legal question. 
GLOBUS HANDELSHOF 
 
7 
(C) Applicable provisions/case-law 
I. The state of EU law: 
1. Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and 
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (OJ 2018 L 150, p. 1) provides, 
inter alia: 
Points (52) and (53) of Article 3: 
‘The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this Regulation: 
52. “labelling” means any words, particulars, trade marks, brand name, 
pictorial matter or symbol relating to a product that are placed on any 
packaging, document, notice, label, ring or collar that accompanies or refers 
to that product; 
53. “advertising” means any presentation of products to the public, by any 
means other than a label, that is intended or is likely to influence and shape 
attitudes, beliefs and behaviours in order to directly or indirectly promote the 
sale of products; 
Article 30 – Use of terms referring to organic production 
(1) For the purposes of this Regulation, a product shall be regarded as 
bearing terms referring to organic production where, in the labelling, 
advertising material or commercial documents, such a product, its 
ingredients or feed materials used for its production are described in terms 
suggesting to the purchaser that the product, ingredients or feed materials 
have been produced in accordance with this Regulation. In particular, the 
terms listed in Annex IV and their derivatives and diminutives, such as ‘bio’ 
and ‘eco’, whether alone or in combination, may be used throughout the 
Union and in any language listed in that Annex for the labelling and 
advertising of products referred to in Article 2(1) which comply with this 
Regulation. 
(2) For the products referred to in Article 2(1), the terms referred to in 
paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be used anywhere in the Union, in any 
language listed in Annex IV, for the labelling, advertising material or 
commercial documents of a product which does not comply with this 
Regulation. 
Furthermore, no terms, including terms used in trademarks or company 
names, or practices shall be used in labelling or advertising if they are liable 
to mislead the consumer or user by suggesting that a product or its 
ingredients comply with this Regulation. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-745/24 
 
8  
[…] 
Article 32 – Compulsory indications 
(1) Where products bear terms as referred to in Article 30(1), including 
products labelled as in-conversion products in accordance with 
Article 30(3): 
(a) the code number of the control authority or control body to which the 
operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is 
subject shall also appear in the labelling; and 
(b) in the case of prepacked food, the organic production logo of the 
European Union referred to in Article 33 shall also appear on the packaging, 
except in cases referred to in Article 30(3) and points (b) and (c) of 
Article 30(5). 
… 
(3) The indications referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article and in 
Article 33(3) shall be marked in a conspicuous place in such a way as to be 
easily visible, and shall be clearly legible and indelible. 
[…] 
Article 33 – Organic production logo of the European Union 
(1) The organic production logo of the European Union may be used in the 
labelling, presentation and advertising of products which comply with this 
Regulation. 
The organic production logo of the European Union may also be used for 
information and educational purposes related to the existence and 
advertising of the logo itself, provided that such use is not liable to mislead 
the consumer as regards the organic production of specific products, and 
provided that the logo is reproduced in accordance with the rules set out in 
Annex V. In such case, the requirements of Article 32(2) and point 1.7 of 
Annex V shall not apply. 
The organic production logo of the European Union shall not be used for 
processed food as referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 30(5) and for in-
conversion products as referred to in Article 30(3). 
(2) Except where used in accordance with the second subparagraph of 
paragraph 1, the organic production logo of the European Union is an 
official attestation in accordance with Articles 86 and 91 of Regulation (EU) 
2017/625. 
[…] 
GLOBUS HANDELSHOF 
 
9 
2. In accordance with Article 14(1)(a) 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, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and 
(EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing 
Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission 
Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, OJ L 2011 304, p. 18 (‘the FIC Regulation’), a 
person advertising prepacked foods by distance selling must provide certain 
mandatory food information before the purchase is concluded. In accordance with 
Article 2(2)(c) of the FIC Regulation, mandatory food information includes the 
particulars that are required to be provided in accordance with other Union 
provisions. 
3. As far as can be seen, the Court of Justice of the European Union has not yet 
resolved the question at issue. 
II. German law: 
Under Paragraph 8(1) and (3) point 2 of the Gesetz gegen den unlauteren 
Wettbewerb (Law against Unfair Competition, ‘the UWG’), associations such as 
the applicant may bring actions for injunctions on the basis of the law on fair 
trading practices. Under Paragraph 3a of the UWG, a breach of law may also give 
rise to such a right under certain conditions which, in the present case, may be 
satisfied subject to and on the basis of the present reference for a preliminary 
ruling. Furthermore, under Paragraphs 5(a) and (b) of the UWG, it is anti-
competitive when operators withhold material information from consumers. 
Thus, in so far as the indication of a control body and number in the context of the 
present case should be mandatory information, the applicant would also have a 
right of injunction against the defendant under the German law on fair trading 
practices. 
(D) Subject matter of the dispute 
The parties agree that a manufacturer of organic products itself must also, under 
EU law, provide those products with the indication of the control body and the 
control body number. However, they disagree as to whether a commercial chain 
such as the defendant is already required to provide that information in a printed 
advertising leaflet which is distributed, inter alia, through the distributors of 
leaflets, but which is also available in the market. 
This Chamber provisionally tends toward the following legal opinion: 
Article 32(1)(a) of Regulation 834/2007 obliges inter alia the manufacturer, but 
also the seller, to label a product bearing the indication ‘organic’ also by the code 
number of the competent control authority or the competent control body, in 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-745/24 
 
10  
accordance with paragraph 3 of that provision, ‘in a conspicuous place in such a 
way as to be easily visible, clearly legible and indelible’. Under Article 30(1) of 
Regulation 834/2007, a product shall be regarded as bearing terms referring to 
organic production where, in the advertising material, such a product is described 
accordingly. Thus, the advertising used by the defendant results in an obligation 
for it to comply with the provisions on labelling. However, according to the 
wording of Article 32(3) of Regulation 2018/848, this does not concern 
advertising, but the ‘labelling’ of the product to be sold. 
One decisive factor for the resolution of the dispute is how point (52) of Article 3 
of Regulation 2018/848 is to be understood. That provision reads as follows: 
‘labelling’ means any words, particulars, trade marks, brand name, pictorial 
matter or symbol relating to a product that are placed on any packaging, 
document, notice, label, ring or collar that accompanies or refers to that 
product; 
The phrase ‘or refers to that product’ may be understood as regarding any 
‘advertising’ within the meaning of point (53) of Article 3 of Regulation 
2018/848, that is to say also advertising leaflets such as that at issue in the main 
proceedings, as being covered by point (52) of Article 3 of the Regulation on the 
ground that it refers ‘to that product’ which is advertised. In contrast, the 
defendant makes a distinction here, and holds the view that more general 
advertising for such a product is not covered by the definition of point (52) of 
Article 3 of Regulation 2018/848. 
The applicant is of the opinion that the advertising must bear the code number 
because the term ‘labelling’ within the meaning of Article 30(1) of Regulation 
2018/848 includes both labelling as defined in point (52) of Article 3 of the 
Regulation and advertising as defined in of point (53) of Article 3 of the 
Regulation. According to the applicant, this is already apparent from the 
legislature’s clear reference by the provision of Article 32(1) only to ‘labelling’ as 
defined in Article 30(1) of Regulation 2018/848. If the legislature had intended to 
refer to labelling as defined in point (52) of Article 3 of the Regulation, reference 
would have been made to that definition. Clearly, the legislature intended to create 
an obligation to inform consumers about the competent control body not only for 
labelling in the strict (narrow) sense, but for ‘labelling’ in the broader sense, 
namely as defined in Article 30(1) of Regulation 2018/848. 
In the Chamber’s view, however, it is necessary to decide between the facts of the 
case and the legal consequences. The Chamber tends not to draw any legal 
conclusion from the Regulation to the effect that, in the case of a product bearing 
the term organic, advertising not directly linked to the product must indicate the 
control number. That is clear in the English version of Article 32(1)(a) of 
Regulation 2018/848 – ‘labelling’ specifically does not refer to advertising. 
GLOBUS HANDELSHOF 
 
11 
Article 32(3) of Regulation 2018/848 also emphasises the product-related 
character of the broader labelling obligations. The Chamber therefore tends to 
distinguish, in the interpretation of point (52) of Article 3 of Regulation 2018/848, 
between general advertising (distant from the product) and specific advertising 
(close to the product). Whereas general advertising only promotes the purchase of 
a beverage or product of a particular brand and variety, specific advertising 
concerns a particular batch, or even a particular product. It is likely that this 
distinction has its basis in Article 32(3) of the Regulation, which typically 
assumes a labelling of the product itself. 
The Chamber illustrates its idea with two examples. If a beverage producer 
promotes an organic beverage on television, but operates several plants from 
which the beverage is delivered, it would be unable, in purely practical terms, to 
list all the control bodies without misleading consumers. Since the production 
plant has not yet been determined, the control body within the meaning of 
Article 32(1)(a) of the Regulation has also not yet been determined at that time. It 
would then be impossible for Coca Cola or Red Bull, for example, to advertise a 
new organic cola at the Olympic Games. From a legal point of view, it should be 
borne in mind that such advertising remains abstract and is still relatively far from 
the point of sale. Although it may be desirable to give the consumer 
comprehensive information, he or she is not yet in the actual purchasing process. 
In the Chamber’s view, it would meet the requirements of the Regulation if the 
consumer can check the control body at the point of sale. Balancing the legitimate 
interests of the consumer and of the manufacturer, and thus the spirit and purpose 
of Regulation 834/2007, may well lead to the indication of the control body being 
superfluous here at the first stage, which is still far removed from the actual 
purchase. 
Conversely, it is clear that the indication of the control body in an online beverage 
shop that advertises the product is not superfluous. This clearly follows from 
Article 14 of the FIC Regulation. If that were not the case, the purchaser would 
have no chance of becoming aware of the control body before the contract of sale 
was concluded. In such a case, advertising is very close to the purchasing process. 
It is also likely that the labelling obligation also applies when a given batch of 
products, or even a single product, is advertised close to the physical product, for 
example by a display or something similar. In such a case, it is entirely possible 
for the seller to name the control body. 
In the view of the Chamber, however, the present case rather falls within the first 
category. At the time the leaflet is prepared, the trader does not necessarily know 
from which plant the goods will be delivered. Advertising using leaflets is also at 
some distance from the purchase. The customer first has to travel to the point of 
sale. There, however, he or she then discovers the control body from the product 
label itself. 
The Chamber regards this interpretation as preferable because it can be inferred 
from Article 30 of Regulation 834/2007 that the intention is for products to be 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2024 – CASE C-745/24 
 
12  
accompanied by the necessary information; co-regulating advertising is, so to 
speak, no more than a reflection of the spirit and purpose of the Regulation. In the 
Chamber’s view, any prohibition on advertising organic products without 
indicating the control body should be clarified more clearly by the legislature. A 
contrario, it seems to follow from Article 14 of the FIC that advertising outside 
distance selling does not necessarily have to contain mandatory product 
information. This argument is also supported by a comparison with EU rules, for 
example as regards the energy label. However, the other view also seems tenable 
because of the wording of the provisions, which is why the Chamber considers it 
necessary, already at first instance, to refer the matter to the Court of Justice. 
By the first question referred, the Chamber wishes to know whether Regulation 
834/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that advertising leaflets for organic 
products distributed to consumers throughout a catchment area must already 
contain details of the control body. 
By the second question referred, the Chamber elaborates on its question 
concerning the relationship between point (52) of Article 3 and point (53) of 
Article 3 and concerning the interpretation of Articles 30 and 32 of Regulation 
2018/848. It requests, in the event that the Court wishes to draw a distinction in 
that regard, communication of the corresponding criteria enabling such a 
distinction to be drawn. 
[…] [Signature]