EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/30

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 7 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Luc Vanderborght, other party: Verbond der Vlaamse Tandartsen (VZW)

(Case C-339/15)

(2015/C 311/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Luc Vanderborght

Other party: Verbond der Vlaamse Tandartsen (VZW)

Questions referred

1. Should Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market be interpreted as precluding a national law — such as Article 1 of the Belgian Law of 15 April 1958 on advertising in dental care matters — which prohibits, in absolute terms, any advertising, by anyone, relating to oral or dental care?

2. Is a prohibition on advertising in respect of oral and dental care to be regarded as a ‘rule relating to the health and safety aspects of products’ within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2005/29/EC …

3. Should Directive 2005/29/EC … be interpreted as precluding a national provision — such as Article 8d of the Royal Decree of 1 June 1934 laying down rules for the practice of dentistry — which describes in detail the requirements in terms of discreetness to be met by a sign, intended for the public, at a dental practice?

4. Should Directive 2000/31/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market be interpreted as precluding a national law — such as Article 1 of the Belgian Law of 15 April 1958 on advertising in dental care matters — which prohibits, in absolute terms, any advertising, by anyone, relating to oral or dental care, including a prohibition on commercial advertising by electronic means (website)?

5. How should the term ‘information society services’, as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC by reference to Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC, (3) as amended by Directive 98/48/EC, (4) be interpreted?

6. Should Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby, in order to protect public health, a complete ban is imposed on advertising in respect of dental care?

(1) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

(2) Directive on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

(3) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

(4) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).