This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CO0559
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2012.#Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Articles 34 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and 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 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) – Concept of business-to-consumer commercial practices – Opening of an establishment seven days a week and advertising of that practice.#Articles 92(1) and 103(1), and first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 2005/29/EC – Unfair commercial practices – National legislation prohibiting the opening of an establishment seven days a week.#Case C‑559/11.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2012.
Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Articles 34 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and 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 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) – Concept of business-to-consumer commercial practices – Opening of an establishment seven days a week and advertising of that practice.
Articles 92(1) and 103(1), and first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 2005/29/EC – Unfair commercial practices – National legislation prohibiting the opening of an establishment seven days a week.
Case C‑559/11.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2012.
Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Articles 34 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and 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 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) – Concept of business-to-consumer commercial practices – Opening of an establishment seven days a week and advertising of that practice.
Articles 92(1) and 103(1), and first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 2005/29/EC – Unfair commercial practices – National legislation prohibiting the opening of an establishment seven days a week.
Case C‑559/11.
European Court Reports 2012 -00000
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2012:615
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2012 – Pelckmans Turnhout
(Case C-559/11)
Articles 92(1) and 103(1), and first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 2005/29/EC – Unfair commercial practices – National legislation prohibiting the opening of an establishment seven days a week
1. Approximation of laws – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices – Directive 2005/29 – Scope – National legislation prohibiting the opening of an establishment seven days a week – Legislation which does not pursue objectives related to consumer protection – Not included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29) (see paras 20-24, operative part)
2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Reference which does not set out the reasons justifying a referral to the Court of Justice – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92 and 103(1)) (see paras 28-31)
Re:
| Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Articles 34 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and 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 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) – Concept of business-to-consumer commercial practices – Opening of an establishment seven days a week and advertising of that practice. |
Operative part
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’) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not pursue objectives related to consumer protection.