- 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-52/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/114/EC — Concepts of ‘misleading advertising’ and ‘comparative advertising’ — National legislation providing that misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising are two separate unlawful acts)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CA0052
62013CA0052
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 135/13
(Case C-52/13) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/114/EC - Concepts of ‘misleading advertising’ and ‘comparative advertising’ - National legislation providing that misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising are two separate unlawful acts))
2014/C 135/14
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint
Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
Interveners: Cg srl, Tacoma srl
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21) — Unfair business practices between traders — Concept of ‘misleading advertising and comparative advertising’ — National legislation which not only prohibits advertising that is at the same time misleading and based on unlawful comparison but also provides that misleading advertising and comparative advertising are two separate offences.
Operative part of the judgment
With regard to the protection afforded to traders, Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is to be interpreted as referring to misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising as two independent infringements and to the effect that, in order to prohibit and penalise misleading advertising, it is not necessary that that latter at the same time should constitute unlawful comparative advertising.
*
Language of the case: Italian.