This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0657
Case C-657/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 21 December 2011 — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers and Visys NV
Case C-657/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 21 December 2011 — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers and Visys NV
Case C-657/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 21 December 2011 — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers and Visys NV
OJ C 73, 10.3.2012, p. 17–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.3.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 73/17 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 21 December 2011 — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers and Visys NV
(Case C-657/11)
2012/C 73/31
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hof van Cassatie van België
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology
Defendants:
|
|
Bert Peelaers |
|
|
Visys NV |
Question referred
Is the term ‘advertising’ in Article 2 of Council Directive 84/450/EEC (1) of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising and in Article 2 of Directive 2006/114/EC (2) of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising to be interpreted as encompassing, on the one hand, the registration and use of a domain name and, on the other, the use of metatags in a website’s metadata?
(1) OJ L 250, p. 17.
(2) OJ L 376, p. 21.