Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: C-559/11
    • Member State: European Union
    • Common Name:Pelckmans Turnhout
    • Decision type: Court of Justice decision
    • Decision date: 04/10/2012
    • Court: Court of Justice of the European Union
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Pelckmans Turnhout NV
    • Defendant: Walter Van Gastel Balen NV, Walter Van Gastel NV, Walter Van Gastel Schoten NV, Walter Van Gastel Lifestyle NV,
    • Keywords: general discussion, scope of the Directive
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Whereas, (8) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, link
  • Headnote
    Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation which does not pursue objectives related to consumer protection.
  • Facts
    Defendant's horticultural enterprises were operating seven days per week. Plaintiff stated that this was in breach of the Law of 6 April 2010, which implemented Directive 2005/29 into Belgian law and filed a claim with the Commercial Court of Antwerp to impose a compulsory weekly closing day.

    Doubting the applicability of the Law of 6 April 2010 and thereby Directive 2005/29 to the issue at stake, the Commercial Court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer two questions to the Court of Justice for preliminary ruling.
  • Legal issue
    Should Directive 2005/29 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prohibits traders from operating seven days per week by imposing a compulsory weekly closing day?
  • Decision

    The court reiterated its decision in Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag in conjunction with recital 8 of Directive 2005/29 in stating that the Directive applies only to national rules that envision the protection of consumers. The national rule imposing a compulsory weekly closing day did not serve to protect the interests of consumers but those of competitors. Therefore, the Directive did not apply to that rule.


    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The court referred the case back to the national court.

Use the form below to share your comments and feedback on our new website