Although Community law provides that the labelling of foodstuffs must not mislead buyers or consumers, it precludes aspects of French legislation which require the use of French only for labelling particulars.
Mr Yannick GEFFROY works as a buyer in the French CASINO group of supermarkets.
Following an inspection carried out by the Direction de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des Fraudes (Department of Competition and Consumer Protection) of the Département of Puy-de-Dôme on 5 June 1996 at the GEANT hypermarket (CASINO group) at Clermont-Ferrand, the Tribunal de Police (Criminal Court) of Saint-Etienne imposed 506 fines on Mr GEFFROY for breach of French legislation on the labelling of foodstuffs (501 fines of FF 50 and 5 fines of FF 2 000). CASINO was held to be liable.
The Department of Competition and Consumer Protection had found that:
The Cour d'Appel (Court of Appeal), Lyon, before which the case came, brought a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities as to the compatibility of the French legislation with Community law on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs.
Community law provides that such labelling and the methods used must not be such as could mislead the purchaser, particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuff concerned (nature, properties, composition, quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufacture or production).
The Court of Justice stated in its judgment that it was not for it but for the national court to rule on whether or not the labelling of certain products was likely to mislead consumers. It was, however, able to offer a number of clarifications to guide the national court in its decision.
The fact that the composition of alcoholic drinks made of apples, lawfully manufactured and marketed in a Member State under the denomination `cider', does not comply with the legislation of another Member State on the production of cider is not in itself sufficient to prohibit the marketing of those drinks in that latter Member State under the denomination `cider' on the sole ground that use of that denomination would be likely to mislead consumers in that State.
The Court of Justice reiterated the conditions under which Member States may require an alteration in the name of a food product, namely where the product concerned is different, as regards its composition or production, from the products generally known under that name in the Community. For more minor differences, appropriate labelling is enough.
In relation to the language requirements of the French legislation, the Court of Justice referred to its earlier case-law: Community law precluded:
However, a provision which provides for the use of a specific language for labelling but permits the use of another language easily understood by purchasers complies with Community law.
The Court of Justice held in those circumstances that the French legislation, which required the use of a specific language for labelling foodstuffs without allowing for the possibility for another language easily understood by purchasers to be used or for them to be informed by other means, did not comply with Community law.
N.B.Attention is drawn to the fact that the Court of Justice was interpreting Community law as it applied at the time of the facts at issue. The relevant provisions of Directive 79/112 have since been amended (by a directive of January 1997).
Unofficial document for the use of the media, for which the Court of Justice does not undertake responsibility. Available in French, English, German, Greek, Spanish, Italian.
For the full text of the judgment, please consult our internet page www.curia.eu.int at at around 1500 hours today.
For further information, please contact Mrs Fionnuala Connolly, tel: (352) 4303 3355 fax: (352) 4303 2731.