European e-Justice Portal

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.

URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62011CO0559&from=EN

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.

Full text

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2012 – Pelckmans Turnhout

(Case C-559/11)

Articles 92(1) and 103(1), and first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 2005/29/EC – Unfair commercial practices – National legislation prohibiting the opening of an establishment seven days a week

1. Approximation of laws – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices – Directive 2005/29 – Scope – National legislation prohibiting the opening of an establishment seven days a week – Legislation which does not pursue objectives related to consumer protection – Not included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29) (see paras 20-24, operative part)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Reference which does not set out the reasons justifying a referral to the Court of Justice – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92 and 103(1)) (see paras 28-31)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Articles 34 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) – Concept of business-to-consumer commercial practices – Opening of an establishment seven days a week and advertising of that practice.

Operative part

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not pursue objectives related to consumer protection.

Case law

Full text