Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG.
Date: 2015-06-04
32. Consequently, Article 2(1)(a)(i) requires that the consumer have correct, neutral and objective information that does not mislead him (see, to that effect, judgment in Commission  v Italy , C‑47/09, EU:C:2010:714, paragraph 37).
35. So far as concerns a reply to the referring court, it must be recalled that, as a general rule, it is not for the Court of Justice, pursuant to the division of jurisdiction between the EU Courts and national courts, to rule on the question whether the labelling of certain products is likely to mislead the purchaser or consumer or to determine whether a sales description is potentially misleading. That task is for the national court. When giving a preliminary ruling on a reference, however, the Court of Justice may, in appropriate cases, give further clarification as guidance to the national court in its decision (see, in particular, judgments in Geffroy , C‑366/98, EU:C:2000:430, paragraphs 18 to 20, and Severi , C‑446/07, EU:C:2009:530, paragraph 60).
36. In order to assess the capacity of labelling to mislead, the national court must in essence take account of the presumed expectations, in light of that labelling, which an average consumer who is reasonably well informed, and reasonably observant and circumspect has, as to the origin, provenance, and quality associated with the foodstuff, the critical point being that the consumer must not be misled and must not be induced to believe, incorrectly, that the product has an origin, provenance or quality which are other than genuine (see, to that effect, judgment in Severi , C‑446/07, EU:C:2009:530, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
37. In that regard, it is apparent from the case-law that the Court has acknowledged that consumers whose purchasing decisions depend on the composition of the products in question will first read the list of ingredients, the display of which is required by Article 3(1)(2) of Directive 2000/13 (see, to that effect, judgments in Commission  v Germany , C‑51/94, EU:C:1995:352, paragraph 34, and Darbo , C‑465/98, EU:C:2000:184, paragraph 22).
38. However, the fact that the list of ingredients is displayed on the packaging of the goods at issue in the main proceedings does not in itself exclude the possibility that the labelling of those goods and methods used for it may be such as to mislead the purchaser within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13.
39. The labelling, as defined in Article 1(3)(a) of that directive, is composed of any words, particulars, trade marks, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol relating to a foodstuff and placed on its packaging. Some of those items may in practice be misleading, erroneous, ambiguous, contradictory or incomprehensible.
40. In that case, the list of ingredients, even though correct and comprehensive, may in some situations not be capable of correcting sufficiently the consumer’s erroneous or misleading impression concerning the characteristics of a foodstuff that stems from the other items comprising its labelling.
41. Therefore, where the labelling of a foodstuff and methods used for the labelling, taken as a whole, give the impression that a particular ingredient is present in that foodstuff, even though that ingredient is not in fact present, such labelling is such as could mislead the purchaser as to the characteristics of the foodstuff.