- 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-126/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 10 March 2011 — Inno NV v Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers VZW (UNIZO), Organisatie voor de Zelfstandige Modedetailhandel VZW (Mode Unie), Couture Albert BVBA
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0126
62011CN0126
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
21.5.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 152/15
(Case C-126/11)
2011/C 152/26
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Inno NV
Defendant: Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers VZW (UNIZO), Organisatie voor de Zelfstandige Modedetailhandel VZW (Mode Unie), Couture Albert BVBA
Question referred
Must Directive 2005/29 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, and in particular Articles 1, 2(d), 3(1) and 5 thereof, be interpreted so that those articles are incompatible with national legislation such as the first and third paragraphs of Article 53(1) of the Wet van 14 juli 1991 betreffende de handelspraktijken en de voorlichting en bescherming van de consument (Law of 14 July 1991 on commercial practices and consumer information and protection), which, for the sectors mentioned in Article 52(1) of that Law, prohibits traders, during the restricted periods of 15 November to 2 January and 15 May to 30 June, and regardless of the place or the means of communication used, from making announcements of price reductions, as well as announcements suggestive of a price reduction, as referred to in Article 42 of that Law, and also from making announcements and suggestions of price reductions before the commencement of a restricted period which would take effect during that restricted period, even though the measure concerned, despite the dual objective put forward by the national legislature, namely, on the one hand, the protection of the interests of consumers and, on the other hand, the regulation of the competitive relations between traders, in reality serves to regulate the competitive relations between traders and, considering the other guarantees provided by the legislation, does not contribute effectively to consumer protection?
Language of the case: Dutch.
* * *
(1) OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.