Facts
- The European Court of Justice (ECJ) examined the scope of Member States' authority to restrict advertising in the interest of protecting consumers from misleading advertisements.
- The case involved the interpretation of Article 5 of Directive 84/450/EEC, which addresses misleading advertising.
- The dispute centered on Austrian legislation that prohibited price comparisons between products that were not identical.
- The legislation aimed to prevent consumer deception but raised concerns about limitations on the free movement of goods and services within the EU.
Issues
- Whether national restrictions on comparative advertising involving price comparisons with non-identical products are permissible under Article 5 of Directive 84/450/EEC.
- Whether such advertising restrictions are justified as necessary and proportionate consumer protection measures.
- Whether the Austrian legislation amounted to a disguised restriction on trade or could be justified as a legitimate effort to prevent misleading advertising.
Decision
- The ECJ determined that Directive 84/450/EEC permits Member States to adopt advertising regulations stricter than those required by the Directive, provided the regulations pursue a legitimate aim and are compatible with EU law.
- The Court stated that consumer protection qualifies as a legitimate aim, but any restriction must specifically tackle misleading advertising and not act as a disguised trade barrier.
- The ECJ indicated that an outright prohibition on price comparisons involving non-identical products might be disproportionate; measures need to target and prohibit only specifically misleading advertisements.
- The ECJ did not invalidate the Austrian legislation, instead instructing national courts to assess whether such restrictions are necessary and proportionate in each case.
Legal Principles
- Justifications for advertising restrictions must be based on the need to prevent misleading advertising and must be proportionate to that objective.
- Article 5(2) of Directive 84/450/EEC allows Member States to implement stricter national provisions, provided these are necessary and consistent with EU law.
- Consumer protection is a legitimate aim, but Member States must prove that their measures are necessary and proportionate.
- Restrictions must not function as disguised obstacles to trade within the internal market.
Conclusion
The ECJ held that Member States may impose advertising restrictions aimed at consumer protection if such measures are necessary and proportionate, emphasizing that national courts must determine, case by case, whether prohibitions on price comparisons involving non-identical products comply with these requirements under EU law.