Gut Springenheide markets eggs ready-packed under the description "6-Korn - 10 frische Eier" (six-grain - 10 fresh eggs). According to the company, the six varieties of cereals in question account for 60% of the feed mix used to feed the hens producing the eggs it markets. A slip of paper enclosed in each pack of eggs extols the beneficial effect which this feed has on the quality of the eggs. Having repeatedly informed Gut Springenheide that it had reservations with regard to the description and the pack insert, on 24 July 1989, the Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt - Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung (Chief Administrative Officer of the Rural District of Steinfurt - Office for Supervision of Foodstuffs) directed the company to remove them. In addition, a fine was imposed on its director on 5 September 1990.

By judgment of 11 November 1992, the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court), Münster, dismissed the declaratory action brought by Gut Springenheide and its director on the ground that the description and the pack insert infringed Paragraph 17(1) of the Lebensmittel- und Bedarfsgegenständegesetz (Foodstuffs and Consumer Goods Law) under which misleading descriptions are prohibited.

Gut Springenheide and its director appealed unsuccessfully against that judgment. The German appeal court considered that the description and the pack insert in question infringed Community legislation on the common organization of the market in eggs. That legislation includes a 1990 regulation on marketing standards for eggs which allows egg packaging to carry descriptions or statements designed to promote sales provided that they are not liable to mislead the purchaser. According to the German appeal court, the description "six-grain - 10 fresh eggs", which is also a trade mark, and the pack insert are liable to mislead a significant proportion of consumers in that they imply falsely that the feed given to the hens is made up exclusively of the six cereals indicated and that their eggs have particular qualities.

Gut Springenheide and its director then brought an appeal on a point of law before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) which took the view that the Community legislation on the promotion of sales could be interpreted in two ways. Either the misleading nature of the descriptions in question is to be assessed with reference to the actual expectations of consumers, in which case those expectations ought, if necessary, to be ascertained by means of a survey of a representative sample of consumers or on the basis of an expert's report, or the provision in question is based on an objective notion of a purchaser, which is open to legal interpretation only, irrespective of the actual expectations of consumers. In other words, which is the reference consumer to be used as a standard for determining whether a statement designed to promote sales of eggs is likely to mislead the purchaser, in breach of the 1990 regulation? That is the background against which the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ordered that proceedings be stayed and the questions, on which the Court ruled today, be referred to the Court of Justice.

Referring to the Community legislation and case-law on the protection of consumers from misleading information, the Court has held that, in order to determine whether a statement or description designed to promote sales of eggs is liable to mislead the purchaser, in breach of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation No 1907/90, the national court must take into account the presumed expectations which it evokes in an average consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. However, Community law does not preclude the possibility that, where the national court has particular difficulty in assessing the misleading nature of the statement or description in question, it may have recourse, under the conditions laid down by its own national law, to a consumer research poll or an expert's report as guidance for its judgment.

It is now up to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht to apply this principle in the Gut Springenheide case.

This press release is an unofficial document for media use which does not bind the Court of Justice. It is available in German, English and French.

For the full text of the judgment, consult our Internet page www.curia.eu.int at around 3 pm today.

For further information, contact Tom Kennedy phone: (352) 4303 3355 fax: (352) 4303 2731.