Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document C2006/010/20

Case C-381/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 13 October 2005 in De Lantsheer Emmanuel v Comite Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne ( CIVC ) and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

OJ C 10, 14.1.2006, p. 10–11 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/10

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 13 October 2005 in De Lantsheer Emmanuel v Comite Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (‘CIVC’) and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

(Case C-381/05)

(2006/C 10/20)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of Appeal) of 13 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between De Lantsheer Emmanuel and Comite Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (‘CIVC’) and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin on the following questions:

1.

Does the definition of comparative advertising cover advertisements in which the advertiser refers only to a type of product, so that in those circumstances such advertisements must be regarded as referring to all undertakings which offer that type of product, and each of them can claim to have been identified?

2.

With a view to determining whether there is a competitive relationship between the advertiser and the undertaking to which reference is made within the meaning of Article 2a of Directive 84/450:

(a)

On the basis in particular of a comparison of Article 2a with paragraph (b) of Article 3a, should any undertaking which can be identified in the advertising be regarded as a competitor within the meaning of Article 2a, whatever the goods or services it offers?

(b)

In the event of a negative response to that question and if other conditions are required in order for a competitive relationship to be established, is it necessary to consider the current state of the market and drinking habits in the Community or is it necessary also to consider how those habits might evolve?

(c)

Must any investigation be confined to that part of the Community territory in which the advertising is disseminated?

(d)

Is it necessary to consider the competitive relationship in relation to the types of products being compared and the way in which those types of products are generally perceived, or is it necessary, in order to assess the degree of substitution possible, to take into account also the particular characteristics of the product which the advertiser intends to promote in the advertising concerned and of the image he intends to give it?

(e)

Are the criteria by which a competitive relationship within the meaning of Article 2(2a) can be established identical to the criteria for verifying whether the comparison satisfies the condition referred to in paragraph (b) of Article 3a?

3.

Does a comparison of Article 2(2a) of Directive 84/450 (1) with Article 3a of that directive mean that

(a)

either any comparative advertising is unlawful which enables a type of product to be identified where a competitor or the goods offered by him cannot be identified from the wording?

(b)

or the lawfulness of the comparison must be considered in the light only of national legislation other than that by which the provisions of the directive on comparative advertising are transposed, which could lead to reduced protection for consumers or undertakings offering the type of product being compared with the product offered by the advertiser?

4.

If it should be concluded that there has been comparative advertising within the meaning of Article 2(2a), must it be inferred from Article 3a(1)(f) of the Directive that any comparison is unlawful which, in respect of products without designation of origin, relates to products with designation of origin?

(1)  Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18)

Top