Case C-391/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Scope ratione personae — Misleading omissions in advertorials — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting any publication for remuneration not identified by the term ‘advertisement’ ( ‘Anzeige’ ) — Complete harmonisation — Stricter measures — Freedom of the press)
Date: 2013-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, comparative advertising, consumer information, freedom of the press, interpretation of the law, single market, trade information








C_2013367EN.01001802.xml










14.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/18





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH
(Case C-391/12) (1)

(Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Scope ratione personae - Misleading omissions in advertorials - Legislation of a Member State prohibiting any publication for remuneration not identified by the term ‘advertisement’ (‘Anzeige’) - Complete harmonisation - Stricter measures - Freedom of the press)
2013/C 367/31
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22), and in particular Articles 3(5), 4 and 7(2) thereof and point 11 of Annex I thereto — Misleading omissions in editorial-style advertising — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting a publication for remuneration which does not mention that it is an ‘advertisement’ (‘Anzeige’)

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, 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 (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) may not be relied on as against newspaper publishers, with the result that, in those circumstances, that directive must be interpreted as not precluding the application of a national provision under which those publishers are required to identify specifically, in this case through the use of the term ‘advertisement’ (‘Anzeige’), any publication in their periodicals for which they receive remuneration, unless it is already evident from the arrangement and layout of the publication that it is an advertisement.


(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.