Case C-381/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, (Belgium)) — De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA (Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Comparative advertising — Identifying a competitor or the goods or services offered by a competitor — Goods or services satisfying the same needs or with the same purpose — Reference to designations of origin)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: comparative advertising, competition, interpretation of the law

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/11

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May
1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of
motor vehicles is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
whereby compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance does not cover
liability in respect of personal
injuries to persons travelling in a
part of a motor vehicle which has not been designed and
constructed with seating accommodation for passengers.

2. Article 1 of Third Directive 90/232 satisfies all the conditions
necessary for it
to produce direct effect and accordingly confers
rights upon which individuals may rely directly before the national
courts. However, it is for the national court to determine whether
that provision may be relied upon against a body such as the
Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland.

(1) OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Bruxelles, (Belgium)) — De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v
Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and
Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA

(Case C-381/05) (1)

(Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Comparative adver-
tising — Identifying a competitor or the goods or services
offered by a competitor — Goods or services satisfying the
same needs or with the same purpose — Reference to designa-
tions of origin)

(2007/C 96/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA

Respondents: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne
and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Bruxelles
(Brussels Court of Appeal) — Interpretation of Article 2(2a) and
Article 3a(b) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September
1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and

the European Parliament and of

the Member States concerning
administrative provisions of
misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by
Directive 97/55/EC of
the
Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC
concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative
advertising (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18) — Comparative advertising
— Identification of a competitor or of the goods or services
offered by a competitor — Use for advertising a beer of terms
referring to characteristics of sparkling wines and, more specifi-
cally, Champagne

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(2a) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September
1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as
amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 6 October 1997, is to be interpreted as meaning
that a reference in an advertisement to a type of product and not to
a specific undertaking or product can be considered to be compara-
tive advertising where it is possible to identify that undertaking or
the goods that it offers as being actually referred to by the advertise-
ment. The fact that a number of the advertiser's competitors or the
goods or services that they offer may be identified as being in fact
referred to by the advertisement is of no relevance for the purpose of
recognising the comparative nature of the advertising.

2. The existence of a competitive relationship between the advertiser
and the undertaking identified in the advertisement cannot be
established independently of the goods or services offered by that
undertaking.

In order to determine whether there is a competitive relationship
between the advertiser and the undertaking identified in the adver-
tisement, it is necessary to consider:

— the current state of the market and consumer habits and how

they might evolve,

— the part of the Community territory in which the advertising is
disseminated, without, however, excluding, where appropriate,
the effects which the evolution of consumer habits seen in other
Member States may have on the national market at issue, and

— the particular characteristics of the product which the advertiser
seeks to promote and the image which it wishes to impart to it.

The criteria for establishing the existence of a competitive relation-
ship within the meaning of Article 2(2a) of Directive 84/450, as
amended by Directive 97/55, are not identical to those for deter-
in
comparison
mining whether
Article 3a(1)(b) of the same directive.

condition

fulfils

the

the

3. Advertising which refers to a type of product without thereby identi-
fying a competitor or the goods which it offers is not impermissible
with regard to Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended by
Directive 97/55. The conditions governing whether such adver-
tising is permissible must be assessed in the light of other provi-
sions of national
law or, where appropriate, of Community law,
irrespective of the fact that that could mean a lower level of protec-
tion for consumers or competing undertakings.

C 96/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

4. Article 3a(1)(f) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive
97/55, must be interpreted as meaning that, for products without
designation of origin, any comparison which relates to products
with designation of origin is not impermissible.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias — (Greece)) — Georgios Alevizos v Ipourgos
Ikonomikon

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

(Case C-392/05) (1)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion (Belgium)) — Raffaele Talotta v Belgium State

(Case C-383/05) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Article 52 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Non-resident
taxpayer carrying out a self-employed activity — Setting of
minimum tax bases applicable only to non-resident taxpayers
— Justified by requirements of general interest — Effective-
ness of fiscal supervision — Not justified)

(2007/C 96/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raffaele Talotta

Defendant: Belgium State

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation,
Belgium — Interpretation of Article 43 of the EC Treaty —
National legislation allowing minimum tax bases to be applied
only in the case of non-residents

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
precludes legislation of a Member State, such as the rule resulting from
Article 342(2) of the Income Tax Code 1992 and Article 182 of the
Royal Decree of 27 August 1993 implementing the Income Tax
Code 1992, which lays down minimum tax bases only for non-resi-
dent taxpayers.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

(Freedom of movement for workers — Directive 83/183/EEC
— Article 6 — Definitive import into one Member State of a
private vehicle from another Member State — Member of the
armed forces of one Member State posted temporarily to
another Member State for official reasons — Concept of
‘normal residence’)

(2007/C 96/19)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georgios Alevizos

Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias —
Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of
28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent
imports from a Member State of the personal property of indivi-
duals (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 64) — Scope of ‘normal residence’ —
Civil servants and officers of the armed forces posted abroad on
service

Operative part of the judgment

Excise duties such as those at issue in the main proceedings come
within the scope of the tax exemption provided for in Article 1(1) of
Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions
applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal
property of individuals, as amended by Council Directive 89/604/EEC
of 23 November 1989, where it is established — and that is some-
thing which it is for the national court to determine — that they are
normally charged on the permanent importation by a private individual
of a vehicle for personal use from another Member State. A special
supplementary single payment registration tax such as that at issue in
the main proceedings comes within Article 1(1) where it is established
— and that is something which it is for the national court to deter-
mine — that it is linked to the actual importation of the vehicle.