- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-559/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 7 November 2011 — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0559
62011CN0559
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
4.2.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 32/13
(Case C-559/11)
2012/C 32/23
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Pelckmans Turnhout NV
Defendants: Walter Van Gastel Balen NV, Walter Van Gastel NV, Walter Van Gastel Schoten NV, Walter Van Gastel Lifestyle NV
Questions referred
1.Is it to be regarded as an act, omission, course of conduct or representation, commercial communication including advertising and marketing, by a trader, directly connected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to consumers, and thus as a commercial practice within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) 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’)], for a shop to be kept open by a trader seven days a week and for that fact to be advertised?
2.Does 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, or another provision of European Union law, such as, inter alia, Articles 34 TFEU or 35 TFEU or Articles 49 TFEU or 56 TFEU, preclude a provision of national law, such as Articles 8 to 14 of the [Belgian] Law of 10 November 2006 [on opening hours in commerce, crafts and services (‘the Law of 10 November 2006’)] which (save for certain exceptions set out in that law) require a trader to choose a weekly closing day for the shop, given that the trader is thereby prohibited from opening his shop seven days a week, irrespective of the impact that this has or may have on the average consumer and irrespective of whether that act may, in the particular circumstances, be regarded as being contrary to professional diligence or honest commercial practices, and irrespective also of the fact that other legislation besides the Law of 10 November 2006 safeguards employees’ rest periods for the purposes of employment law?
(1) OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.