Gut Springenheide GmbH and Another v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises

Steinfurt--AMT für Lebensmittelüberwachung and Another

(Case C-210/96)

Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber)

ECJ (5th Chamber)

(Presiding, Gulmann P.C., Wathelet, Moitinho de

Almeida, Edward and Puissochet (Rapporteur) JJ.) Mr Jean Mischo, Advocate General

16 July 1998

Reference from Germany by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal

Administrative Court) under Article 177 E.C.

Consumers--statement on egg packs referring to the nature of laying hens' feed--not prohibited as relating to type of farming by Article 18 of Directive 1274/91--whether misleading for consumers might be determined by reference to presumed expectations of average reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect consumer--Community law, not, however, precluding national court from having recourse to expert's report or consumer research poll as permitted by national law. Gut Springenheide GmbH ("the company") marketed ready-packed eggs under the description "6-Korn--10 frische Eier" ("6-Grain--10 fresh Eggs"), which was also the company's trademark and which referred to the six varieties of cereals which accounted for 60 per cent of the feed mix used to feed the hens which produced the eggs. A slip of paper enclosed in each pack extolled the beneficial effect of this feed on the quality of the eggs. The German Office of Supervision of Foodstuffs required the company to remove the description and the pack-insert and imposed a fine on a director of the company in relation to them. The company then sought a declaration before the Verwaltungsgericht ("Administrative Court") as to the permissibility of its conduct but was unsuccessful, the court holding that the description and insert infringed paragraph 17(1) of the Foodstuffs and Consumer Goods Law which prohibited

misleading descriptions. The company also failed on appeal, the appeal court holding that the description and insert infringed Article 10(1)(a) and 2(e) of Regulation 1907/90 on marketing standards for eggs. Article 10(1)(a) listed the particulars which egg packs were required to bear but which also permitted the trademark of the marketer to be shown provided *1384 that it contained no wording incompatible with the Regulation relating to the quality or freshness of the eggs, the type of farming used for their production or their origin. Article 10(2)(e) permitted packs to carry certain additional information, including statements designed to promote sales, provided that such statements and the manner in which they were made were not likely to mislead the purchaser. The company appealed to the Federal Administrative Court which referred questions to the Court of Justice as to the interpretation of Article 10(2)(e) of the Regulation, asking essentially whether when determining, for the purposes of that provision, whether statements were likely to mislead the purchaser, the court was to have regard to the actual expectations of the consumers to whom they were addressed or whether it was to apply an objective concept of a purchaser arising as a matter of judicial interpretation. France argued that the reference was inadmissible because Regulation 1907/90 came into force after the events in issue in the main proceedings and because the description used by the company was, in any event, prohibited by Article 10(2)(e) on other grounds, namely because it related to the type of poultry farming being practised, as referred to by Article 10(3) and because it was not listed in Article 18(1) of Regulation 1274/91 which exhaustively listed the terms, indicating the type of farming, which could appear on egg packs. Held: SUB(1) Admissibility. (a) The relevant provisions of Article 10(2)(e) of the Regulation were substantially equivalent to those contained in Regulation 2772/75 which it repealed and replaced, and which was in force at the material time. Furthermore, since the company was seeking a declaration of the compatibility of its conduct with the rules in force, the national court necessarily needed to refer to the provisions in force when the action was brought rather than when the events in issue occurred. The questions referred were therefore to be answered. [16]-[19] Gutshof-EI (C-203/90): [1992] E.C.R. I-1003; [1994] 1 C.M.L.R. 397, followed. (b) Article 18 of Regulation 1274/91 was confined to regulating the description of the type of farming which egg packs could bear (such as "free-range eggs", etc.) irrespective of the type of feed given to the hens, a matter which did not, in any case, depend on the type of farming. Thus the provisions of Regulations 1907/90 and 1274/91 regarding descriptions of types of farming of laying hens did not preclude egg packs from bearing the description in issue. [20]-[26] SUB(2) The concept of "the consumer". Provisions similar to Article 10(2)(e), intended to protect consumers from being misled, appeared in several pieces of Community secondary legislation. In several cases where the Court of Justice had *1385 been called upon to consider whether a description, trade mark or promotional text was misleading under such provisions, the Court had settled the issue itself rather than leaving the final

decision to the national court where the evidence and information before it was sufficient and the solution clear. In those cases the Court took account of the presumed expectations of an average consumer who was reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect and did not therefore order an expert's report or commission a consumer research poll on the expectations of actual consumers. National courts ought to be able, in general, to adopt the same approach. [27]-[32] GB-INNO-BM (C-362/88): [1990] E.C.R. I-667; [1991] 2 C.M.L.R. 801; Pall (C-238/89): E.C.R. I-4827; Yves Rocher (C-126/91): [1993] E.C.R. I-2361; Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb (C-315/92): [1994] E.C.R. I-317; Langguth (C-456/93): [1995] E.C.R. I-1737; [1995] 2 C.M.L.R. 867; and Mars (C-470/93): [1995] E.C.R. I-1923, considered. (b) On the other hand, in cases in which the Court of Justice did not have the necessary information, or where the solution was not clear from the information before it, the Court had left it to the national court to decide whether or not particular material was misleading. The Court had not therefore ruled out the possibility that, in certain circumstances at least, a national court might decide in accordance with its domestic law, to order an expert's report or commission a consumer research poll. In the absence of Community law on the point it was for the national court to determine, under domestic law, what percentage of consumers misled by promotional material would be sufficiently high to justify banning its use. [33]-[37] Gutshof-EI, supra; De Kikvorsch (94/82): [1983] E.C.R. 947; [1984] 2 C.M.L.R. 323; Graffione (C-313/94): [1996] E.C.R. I-6039; [1997] 1 C.M.L.R. 925; and X (C-373/90): [1992] E.C.R. I-131, considered. Representation Bernhard Stüer, Rechtsanwalt, Münster, for Gut Springenheide GmbH and Rudolph Tusky. Catherine de Salins, Deputy Director at the Legal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Frédéric Pascal, seconded to that Directorate from the central administration, acting as Agents, for the French Government. Franz Cede, Botschafter at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, for the Austrian Government. Lotty Nordling, Rattschef in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, for the Swedish Government. Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of the E.C. Commission's Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Rechtsanwalte, Hamburg, for the E.C. Commission. Corinna Ulrich, Regierungsrätin zur Anstellung in the Federal Ministry of Justice, acting as Agent, for the German Government, in oral argument. *1386 Cases referred to in the judgment: 1. Gutshof-EI GmbH v. Stadt Bühl (C-203/90), 25 February 1992: [1992] E.C.R. I-1003; [1994] 1 C.M.L.R. 397.

2. GB-INNO-BM (C-362/88), 7 March 1990: [1990] E.C.R. I-667; [1991] 2 C.M.L.R. 801. 3. Pall v. Dahlhausen & Co. (C-238/89), 13 December 1990: [1990] E.C.R. I-4827. 4. Yves Rocher (C-126/91), 18 May 1993: [1993] E.C.R. I-2361. 5. Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb (C-315/92), 2 February 1994: [1994] E.C.R. I-317. 6. Wettsbewerbs eV Frankfurt v. Langguth (C-456/93), 29 June 1995: [1995] E.C.R. I-1737; [1995] 2 C.M.L.R. 867. 7. Mars (C-470/93), 6 July 1995: [1995] E.C.R. I-1923. 8. De Kikvorsch (94/82), 17 March 1983: [1983] E.C.R. 947; [1984] 2 C.M.L.R. 323. 9. Fratelli Graffione v. Ditta Fransa (C-313/94), 26 November 1996: [1996] E.C.R. I-6039; [1997] 1 C.M.L.R. 925. 10. X (C-373/90), 16 January 1992: [1992] E.C.R. I-131. Further cases referred to by the Advocate General: 11. Gold-EI v. Handelsklassen (C-372/89), 15 January 1991: [1991] E.C.R. I-43. 12. Ministere Public v. Jean Jaques Paris (C-204/88), 13 December 1989: [1989] E.C.R. 4361; [1991] 1 C.M.L.R. 841.

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo 1. Council Regulation 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs [FN1] provides for the adoption of marketing standards relating in particular to grading by quality and weight, packaging, storage, transport, presentation and marketing of products in the market in eggs. FN1 [1975] O.J. L282/49. 2. On the basis of this regulation, on 26 June 1990 the Council adopted Regulation 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs. [FN2] Article 10 of this regulation lays down the legal rules governing the particulars which may be placed on the packaging in which eggs are sold. This provision is worded as follows: FN2 [1990] O.J. L173/5. 1. Large packs, and small packs even when contained in large packs, shall bear on the outer surface in clearly visible and legible type: (a) the name or business name, and address of the undertaking which has packed the eggs or had them packed; the name, business name or the trade mark used by that undertaking, which may be a trade mark used collectively by a number of undertakings, may be shown if *1387 it contains no wording incompatible with this Regulation relating to the quality or freshness of the eggs,

to the type of farming used for their production or to the origin of the eggs; 2. Both large and small packs may, however, carry the following additional information, on either inner or outer surfaces: (a) ... (e) statements designed to promote sales, provided that such statements and the manner in which they are made are not likely to mislead the purchaser. 3. Further dates and indications concerning the type of farming and the origin of the eggs may only be used in accordance with rules to be laid down under the procedure set out in Article 17 of Regulation 2771/75. These rules shall cover in particular the terms used in indications of the type of farming and the criteria concerning the origin of the eggs. 3. Article 14 of Regulation 1907/90 states that packs may not bear any indications other than those laid down in that regulation. 4. The rules for implementing that regulation were adopted by the Commission in Regulation 1274/91 of 15 May 1991, [FN3] Article 18 of which lists the indications of the type of farming referred to in Article 10(3) of Regulation 1907/90. FN3 [1991] O.J. L121/11. 5. The company Gut Springenheide GmbH, the applicant in the main proceedings (hereinafter "Gut Springenheide"), markets eggs ready-packed under the description "6-Korn--10 frische Eier" (six-grain--10 fresh eggs). A slip of paper, inserted in each pack of eggs, contains this promotional statement: Six-grain eggs are laid by hens fed on six different natural varieties of cereals. Vegetable protein is also a natural component of this feed--making for a thoroughly healthy, delicious egg. Each of the six varieties of cereals ... contains especially important vitamins, minerals and trace elements. The hens' feed is made up in such a way as to exploit these factors to the full. Six-grain eggs stand out for their outstanding flavour and natural quality. 6. After having repeatedly objected to the description "six-grain eggs" and the promotional statement, on 24 July 1989 the Office for Supervision of Foodstuffs formally gave the company notice, through its manager Mr Tusky, to remove the description on the pack and the pack insert. Also, a fine was imposed on Mr Tusky on 5 September 1990. 7. Gut Springenheide and its manager then brought an action before the Verwaltsungsgericht (Administrative Court) for a declaration that the description on the packs and the pack insert were not contrary to the law in force. Unsuccessful at first instance and on appeal, they then *1388 applied to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) for a review of the appeal court's judgment. 8. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht considered that the outcome of the proceedings hinged on the interpretation of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation 1907/90. It therefore decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 1. In order to assess whether, for the purposes of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation 1907/90, statements designed to promote sales are likely to mislead the

purchaser, must the actual expectations of the consumers to whom they are addressed be determined, or is the aforesaid provision based on a criterion of an objectified concept of a purchaser, open only to legal interpretation? 2. If it is consumers' actual expectations which matter, the following questions arise: (a) Which is the proper test: the view of the informed average consumer or that of the casual consumer? (b) Can the proportion of consumers needed to prove a crucial consumer expectation be determined in percentage terms? 3. If an objectified concept of a purchaser open only to legal interpretation is the right test, how is that concept to be defined?

Preliminary considerations 9. The French Government contends that there is no need for the Court to reply to the questions referred to it, for two reasons. 10. First of all, the French Government asks the Court to examine whether it has jurisdiction. It states, rightly, that the facts of the case all occurred prior to 1 October 1990, the date of entry into force of Regulation 1907/90 under Article 24 thereof. 11. It is apparent, however, from the documents before the Court that the appeal made to the referring court is not directly seeking the annulment of measures adopted by the national authorities, but a declaration that the actions of the applicant in the main proceedings are in conformity with the law in force. It is incontestable that the questions posed by the referring court do concern the law as it stood at the time of the appeal. I therefore consider that, in the present case, there is no problem of admissibility of the question referred for a preliminary ruling. 12. However, it should be noted that Regulation 1907/90 was amended in 1993 [FN4] and in 1994. [FN5] Only the first of these two amendments concerns the present case, as the other did not concern Article 10. As a result of this amendment, Article 10(1)(a) now reads as follows: (a) the name or the business name, and address of the undertaking which has packed the eggs or had them packed; the name, business name or the trade mark used by that undertaking, which may be a trade mark used collectively by a number of undertakings, may be shown if it contains no statement or symbol incompatible with this Regulation *1389 relating to the quality or freshness of the eggs, to the type of farming used for their production or to the origin of the eggs. FN4 Council Regulation 2617/93 of 21 September 1993: [1993] O.J. L240/1. FN5 Council Regulation 3117/94 of 12 December 1994: [1994] O.J. L330/4. Article 10(2)(e) now reads as follows: (e) statements or symbols designed to promote sales of eggs or other items, provided that such statements or symbols and the manner in which they are made are not likely to mislead the purchaser.

However, these changes do not affect the formulation of the questions referred by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht. 13. The French Government puts forward a second reason in support of its view that there is no need for the Court to reply to the questions. 14. It claims that the description "six-grain eggs" is, in any event, prohibited under Articles 10(1)(a), 10(3) and 14 of Regulation 1907/90 and that, therefore, the question of the interpretation of the concept of "likely to mislead the purchaser", within the meaning of Article 10(2)(e) of the regulation, does not even arise. 15. The French Government's argument is as follows: the description at issue concerns the type of farming used, as the intention is to draw purchasers' attention to the laying hens' feed, this being one feature of the type of farming used. The French Government concedes that Regulation 1907/90 does not itself define the concept of type of farming, but considers that reference can be made to Commission Regulation 1538/91 of 5 June 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultry, [FN6] wherein descriptions of feed are included under descriptions of the type of farming for poultry. FN6 [1991] O.J. L143/11. 16. Article 10(3) of Regulation 1907/90 states that descriptions of the type of farming can only be used in accordance with rules to be laid down under the procedure set out in Article 17 of Regulation 2771/75. Against that background, the Commission adopted Regulation 1274/91. 17. Article 18 of Regulation 1274/91 exhaustively lists the terms related to the type of farming that may appear on the packs in which eggs are sold. Since the term "six-grain" is not one of the terms listed in the Regulation, according to the French Government its use is unlawful. Therefore, in its view, it is no longer even necessary to reply to questions posed by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht. 18. The French Government argues that, if the wording in question is a business name, then it is subject to the terms of Article 10(1)(a), which states that "the name or business name used by that undertaking ... may be shown if it contains no wording incompatible with this Regulation relating to the quality or freshness of the eggs, to the type of farming used for their production or to the origin of the eggs" and the considerations set out above are therefore also applicable. 19. In this respect, the documents before the Court suggest that the *1390 words in question are also a trade mark. The referring court has not, however, asked the Court about the interpretation of Article 10(1)(a), which is the provision of the Regulation that applies to trade marks. This could, however, be due to the fact that, as the French Government has quite rightly stated, the question of knowing whether the term "six-grain" is or is not used as a trade mark in the case in point is irrelevant to the legal rules that apply to that term: it must, in any event, comply with the regulation and, in particular, with the other requirements of Article 10 thereof. 20. The term "six-grain" is unquestionably not one of the terms related to the type

of farming permitted under the rules. But should this necessarily lead to the conclusion that its use is unlawful? 21. The system introduced by Regulation 1907/90 is based on a distinction between three categories of statements designed to appear on packs in which eggs are sold. 22. Article 10(1) of the aforementioned Regulation lists the information whose use is compulsory. Article 10(3) lays down the rules governing certain information whose use is optional. This information concerns further dates and indications concerning the type of farming and the origin of the eggs. The information referred to in Article 10(3) may only be used in accordance with strict conditions laid down in Commission Regulation 1274/91. Finally, Article 10(2) of Regulation 1907/90 lists a number of terms whose use is permitted, including "statements designed to promote sales, provided that such statements and the manner in which they are made are not likely to mislead the purchaser", which are the subject of the present case. 23. These provisions are completed by Article 14 of Regulation 1907/90, which states that: "Packs may not bear any indications other than those laid down in this Regulation." 24. The question that arises from the French Government's argument is whether indications not meeting the strict conditions in Article 10(3) and its implementing Regulation can nonetheless be considered as being "laid down in this Regulation", as meant by Article 14, because they fall within the category of "statements designed to promote sales" governed by Article 10(2)(e). 25. In my view, the answer to this question must be in the affirmative. One of the aims of rules is in fact to ensure that the consumer is given the fullest information possible so that he can make his choice in the best possible conditions. What is more, by permitting the use of statements designed to promote sales, the rules expressly enable producers to distinguish their products in consumers' eyes from those of their competitors, thereby encouraging them to offer consumers greater diversity. 26. Indeed, this is reinforced by the 13th recital of Regulation 1907/90, which states that: anyone marketing "fresh eggs" should be permitted to stamp such eggs with other particulars serving publicity purposes. *1391 27. Clearly, this concerns eggs and not packs, but it is hard to see why the same comment could not apply to the packs as well. 28. Therefore, "statements designed to promote sales" must be of a kind to confer a distinct identity on the eggs of the producer using such statements. Furthermore, such statements must be assumed to be lawful unless expressly prohibited by the rules or likely to mislead the purchaser. 29. However, Regulation 1274/91, laying down rules governing statements on the type of farming, makes no mention of type of feed. In fact, it makes only one reference to the type of farming, in Article 18, which lists the lawful ways of describing the hens' habitat but says nothing about poultry feeding method. 30. Should it be concluded from this that the Community legislature implicitly wanted to preclude any reference to the latter? Given the principles set out

above, my view is that, on the contrary, its intention, in these provisions, was only to regulate statements regarding the environment in which the poultry is farmed. In contrast, the legislature's silence on the type of feed implies that producers are free to inform consumers on this subject, in compliance with the provisions of Article 10(2)(e). 31. The main argument advanced against this view is the one drawn by the French Government from Regulation 1538/91. Whilst it is true that Article 10 thereof on types of farming includes indications regarding type of feed, I do not think that this is determinative. 32. The definitions in this Regulation reflect the need to define standards applicable to the marketing of poultry, which is an economic activity separate from the marketing of eggs. Furthermore, the terms set out in Regulation 1538/91, regarding the habitat of poultry, are different from those laid down on the same subject in Article 18 of Regulation 1274/91. It is therefore clear that is not possible unreservedly to have recourse to the provisions of Regulation 1538/91 for the purposes of interpreting Regulation 1274/91. 33. This is particularly the case as far as the type of animal feed is concerned. Feed plays a major role in the purchasers' perception of poultry meat and, as stated by the Commission at the hearing, sufficiently clear and irrefutable information on the impact of animal feed on meat characteristics does exist. In that respect, it was inevitable that the legislature would wish to regulate the use of statements concerning the type of animal feed in order to provide optimum consumer information and protection in an area of importance to the consumer. 34. This is evidenced by the seventh recital of Regulation 1538/91, which states that: Whereas among the indications which may optionally be used on the labelling are those concerning the method of chilling and particular types of farming; whereas the use of the latter, in the interest of consumer *1392 protection, needs to be subordinated to the respect of closely-defined criteria concerning both husbandry conditions and quantity thresholds for stating certain criteria such as age at slaughter or length of fattening period and content of certain foodstuff ingredients. 35. Egg marketing, on the other hand, was viewed differently by the legislature. The legislature considered that the type of farming aspect which was of greatest concern to consumers, whose protection was its priority, was the method of keeping poultry. So it focused on the need to regulate the provision of particulars in that regard, about which it was entitled to assume that consumers would attach particular importance to them. 36. The 17th recital of Commission Regulation 1274/91, the only one that relates to types of farming, is particularly clear in this respect: Whereas, in view of current commercial practice, it seems unnecessary to provide for specific indications for the eggs of laying hens kept in batteries; whereas, however, provision should be made for a limited number of indications for the eggs of hens not raised in batteries, so as to avoid confusion amongst consumers as regards the principal non-battery production systems. 37. It therefore seems that the provision of Regulation 1274/91 devoted to types

of farming quite simply did not consider it necessary to regulate indications of type of feeds, unlike in the case of meat. 38. Against this background, it cannot be inferred from the legislature's silence that it sought to prohibit all reference to the type of feed whereas, in the case of meat, where the risk of misleading the consumer was considered to be greater, such a reference was possible, albeit under strictly defined conditions. 39. I therefore conclude that the term "six-grain", even if it does allude to the type of poultry feed, is not necessarily unlawful under Article 10(3) of Regulation 1907/90 but that, on the contrary, it is likely to be covered by the provisions of Article 10(2)(e) of that same Regulation. 40. As a consequence, it is necessary to examine the questions referred to the Court by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht. 41. The three questions submitted can be summarised as follows. The national court asks whether the concept of a purchaser likely to be misled, within the meaning of Regulation 1907/90, refers to the actual expectations of purchasers, that is actual purchasers, or to an objectified, abstract concept of purchaser, open only to legal interpretation. 42. In the first case, the national court asks whether, in order to determine what that actual expectation is, reference has to be made to the concept of the informed average consumer or to that of the casual consumer, and whether the proportion of consumers needed in order to prove an expectation on the part of consumers can be established in percentage terms. *1393 43. In the second case, the national court asks for the legal definition of the objectified concept of a purchaser.

The first question 44. The first step is to provide the referring court with guidance on the concept of a "purchaser likely to be misled" within the meaning of Regulation 1907/90. 45. While the term used in Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation 1907/90 is "purchaser" and not "consumer", although the latter term is used in the Regulation's recitals, I consider that the two words are interchangeable and will therefore refer to the case law of the Court on the concept of a consumer. 46. The applicant in the main proceedings points out that, under Article 129a of the E.C. Treaty, the consumer must be given adequate information. The concept of a consumer is therefore not purely legal. It is also predicated on the actual expectations of purchasers, on the basis that they are informed average purchasers. 47. The French Government considers that it is the responsibility of the national court to determine whether the statements are likely to mislead purchasers and, accordingly, to identify the reference consumer using the methods that it thinks fit (for instance, but not necessarily, by conducting a survey). This is how, in France, the national court assesses the misleading nature of a statement by reference to the "average consumer". 48. The Austrian Government considers that the provisions of Article 10(2)(e) refer to an objective concept of a purchaser requiring a purely legal interpretation. In the view of this Government, the expression "likely to mislead

the purchaser" that appears in this provision raises a question of law, not of fact. 49. According to the Swedish Government, the statements at issue in this case concern an everyday consumer product and so the group at which it is targeted consists of consumers as a whole. In Sweden, the misleading nature of these statements would therefore be assessed by considering how consumers in general could be assumed to understand it, without any need to conduct a survey to determine their actual expectations. The Swedish Government considers that there is no need to apply any differently the provision at issue in the main proceedings. 50. In the Commission's view, assessments as to whether statements designed to promote the sale of eggs are likely to mislead the purchaser should be based on the criteria contained in the Regulation, having regard also to the decisions of the Court on other provisions prohibiting misleading advertising. Under these conditions, it is not absolutely essential to establish the purchaser's actual perception of the promotional description or statement at issue by means of an opinion poll or survey. However, if the national court still has doubts as to whether or not a statement is misleading, it can commission a survey or conduct a poll of consumers. *1394 51. The German Government explained at the hearing that it was necessary to know whether the rule at issue applied only in relation to a clearly defined group of people or whether it was a matter of protecting all Community citizens from the danger of being misled. 52. Only when the legal rule covers all consumers and is intended to protect them from the danger of being misled and the promotional statement in question is also addressed to all consumers, does the question of law prevail over the question of fact. Judges will be able to decide whether such a statement is likely to mislead as they belong to the group of people concerned. However, they must distance themselves from the general perception of consumers as a whole and must base their decision on an objective criterion. They must make a legal assessment of the facts and, within this context, look at what the provision at issue aims to achieve and the place it occupies in the scheme of Community law. 53. According to the German Government, measures of inquiry are only necessary if the statement in question is addressed to a clearly defined group of people, such as experts, or to people who may easily be misled, such as children. In a case such as the present one, the rules are for all egg consumers. Even the statement that the court has to assess is addressed to all consumers. Therefore, measures of inquiry are not really necessary. 54. For my part, I propose a solution nearer to the one recommended by the French Government and by the Commission; it has two elements: -- in the case of promotional statements addressed to all consumers (which is the case with those at issue in the main proceedings), the national court may apply an objectified concept of a consumer; -- however, Community law does not prevent the Court from commissioning a survey on the actual expectations of the consumer if it still has doubts as to the extent to which the statement at issue might mislead the consumer. 55. First, it is fairly clear from the case law of the Court that it has always referred

to an abstract, legal concept of a consumer. This is the average, "reasonably circumspect" consumer, according to the terms used by the Court in paragraph [24] of its judgment in the Mars case. [FN7] FN7 Case C-470/93, Verein gegen Unwesen In Handel und Gewerbe Koeln v. Mars [1995] E.C.R. I-1923. 56. I believe that this definition is substantially the same as the one given by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht on page 9 of the original text of the reference for a preliminary ruling, that of "the informed average consumer who takes in the information about the product on sale and hence the overall characterisation of the products attentively" as opposed to the consumer "who has regard to the information about the product on sale and the statements promoting sale only casually and *1395 uncritically, without checking more closely the message put over by the information". 57. To the same effect one could cite the judgment in the Langguth case, [FN8] concerning the use in a trade mark of terms whose use was regulated. FN8 Case C-456/93, Zentrale zur Bekämpfung Unlauteren Wettbewerbs v. Privatkellerei Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. [1995] E.C.R. I-1737; [1995] 2 C.M.L.R. 867. 58. The fact that in Community law the concept of a consumer is defined in general and abstract terms is clear not only from the case law on Article 30 of the Treaty, cited above, but also from decisions concerning more specifically provisions previously applicable to the marketing of eggs, [FN9] identical to those at issue in this case. FN9 Case C-374/89, Gold-EI Erzeugerverbund v. Überwachungsstelle für Milcherzeugnisse und Handelsklassen [1991] E.C.R. I-43; Case C-203/90, Gutshof-EI v. Stadt Bühl [1992] E.C.R. I-1003; [1994] 1 C.M.L.R. 397; and Case C-204/88, Ministere Public v. Jean-Jacques Paris [1989] E.C.R. 4361; [1991] 1 C.M.L.R. 841, para. [11]. 59. As the Court has generally considered consumers to mean all "average, reasonably circumspect consumers", it has necessarily had recourse to an abstract idea of this concept. 60. However, in the decision in the X (or Nissan) case, [FN10] the Court combined its abstract concept of a consumer with guidance to the national court that the latter was nevertheless also entitled to decide the case by considering the concrete reaction of a significant number of purchasers to a particular form of advertising. FN10 Case C-373/90, x [1992] E.C.R. I-131. 61. In the operative part of that decision, the Court held that Council Directive

84/450 [FN11] on misleading advertising did not preclude vehicles sold in another Member State from being advertised: -- as new, despite the fact that the vehicles had been registered solely for the purpose of importation and had never been on the road; -- as cheaper, when the advertising failed to mention that the vehicles were equipped with fewer accessories than the vehicles in the importing Member State. FN11 Council Directive 84/450 of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising: [1984] O.J. L250/17. 62. By taking this stance, the Court thus considered that, in principle, advertising of this kind was not likely to mislead and affect the behaviour of the consumer considered in abstract terms. 63. But, in the grounds of that same decision, [FN12] the Court stated that it was for the national court, however, to ascertain [FN13] in the circumstances of the particular case and bearing in mind the consumers to which the advertising is addressed, whether the latter could be misleading in so far as, on the one hand, it sought to conceal the fact that the cars advertised as new were registered before importation and, *1396 on the other hand, that fact would have deterred a significant number of consumers from making a purchase, had they known it. FN12 Paras [15] and [16]. FN13 My italics. 64. On the second point, concerning the advertising of the cars as being cheaper, the Court stated in paragraph [16] that: such a claim can only be held misleading if it is established [FN14] that the decision to buy on the part of a significant number of consumers to whom the advertising in question is addressed was made in ignorance of the fact that the lower price of the vehicles was matched by a smaller number of accessories on the cars sold by the parallel importer. FN14 My italics. 65. The Court did not specify how the national court was to "ascertain" or "establish" that the consumers' decisions to buy had been affected or could have been affected by this advertising. 66. According to the decision cited, this could be a finding made by the court after simply hearing the parties and, if necessary, an expert, or a conclusion reached by the court following a survey of consumer reactions. 67. The fact remains that this decision implies that Community law does not require a court to elucidate consumers' actual expectations if it concludes that a particular advertisement, given the way it is worded and the foreseeable reaction

of the average "reasonably circumspect" consumer, is or is not likely to mislead the purchaser. 68. Conversely, Community law does not prevent a court from resorting to surveys when it considers that the advertising in question is not patently improper and that its effect on the "reasonably circumspect" consumer may be open to doubt. 69. Having thus reached the conclusion that there is no requirement under Community law to attempt to discover purchasers' actual expectations, I therefore propose that in reply to the first question, in order to determine whether a statement designed to promote sales is likely to mislead the purchaser, reference should be made to an objective concept of purchaser which is open only to legal interpretation. However, the national court may commission surveys or polls on consumer expectations if it considers this to be necessary. 70. In its third question, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht asks us how the objectified concept of a purchaser is to be defined. 71. Let us therefore pass straight on to that question.

The third question 72. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht considers that if an objectified concept of a purchaser must be applied, this should be based on the literal and teleological interpretation of a condition of application of a Community rule, in the context of which the values that the rule is safeguarding have to be put in balance. 73. In view of what has already been stated above, I think that it is acceptable to reframe the third question in the following terms. *1397 74. If it is assumed that the consumer to be protected is the average "reasonably circumspect" purchaser, what criteria may a court apply in order to decide whether that consumer is likely to be misled by a particular advertising slogan? 75. The question whether a reasonably circumspect consumer is likely to be misled clearly depends, above all, on the content of the advertising slogan at issue. Like the Commission, I consider that the first action of the court should be to establish the meaning of the advertising statement according to linguistic usage and how, on the basis of that meaning, it accords with the truth. 76. The court should then evaluate the effect that the advertising statement may have on the reasonably circumspect consumer. 77. In the eyes of the applicant in the main proceedings, the term "six-grain--10 fresh eggs" and the statement inserted in the egg packs constitute true information which, by definition, cannot mislead the purchaser, whatever conclusions the latter might be likely to draw. 78. However, things are not quite as simple as that. I believe that a distinction needs to be drawn between: -- information that is objectively correct; -- information that is objectively incorrect; -- information that is objectively correct but which could mislead the consumer because it does not reflect the entire truth. 79. As far as information that is objectively correct is concerned, the Court

considers, and this has been pointed out by the Commission, that true statements are not in principle likely to mislead the consumer. [FN15] FN15 Case C-362/88, GB INNO/BM v. Confédération du Commerce Luxembourgeois [1990] E.C.R. I-667; [1991] 2 C.M.L.R. 801, para. [17]; judgment in the X (or Nissan) case, para. [17]; see also the Opinion of Léger A.G. in the Mars case, para. 51, which refers to the decisions of the Court of Justice in the X (or Nissan) case and in Case C-126/91, Schutzverband gegen Unwesen In der Wirtschaft v. Yves Rocher [1993] E.C.R. I-2361. 80. However, it should be noted that sometimes even promotional statements that are true may be likely to mislead the consumer, for instance when such statements involve a risk liable to be confused with terms covered by Regulation 1907/90. [FN16] FN16 See the judgment in the Gutshof-EI case, paras [17] to [19]. 81. Another criterion to be used is the verifiable or unverifiable nature of the information at issue. The importance of this consideration stems in particular from the decisions of the Court concerning the stamping on eggs of the date of laying. Thus, in the judgment in the Paris case, the Court stressed the importance of the accuracy of information supplied to the consumer. In the present case, it would therefore be necessary to confirm that the authorities would be able to verify, if necessary, statements such as the ones in question regarding the feed of the hens that laid the eggs. 82. Eye-catching but irrelevant information can be considered to fall into the category of correct, incontrovertible information. For *1398 instance, if a producer were to print on his packs the statement "hen raised in pure mountain air" or "hen raised in the sunny South of France", the information would probably be true but would have no bearing on the quality of the eggs. It might influence the casual consumer but would be a source of amusement for the informed consumer. 83. As for objectively incorrect statements, these are in principle misleading and prohibited, where, as stated by the Commission, the misleading effect is not eliminated by specific circumstances. 84. It is for the competent national court to assess the facts to decide whether the description of Gut Springenheide's eggs given on the slip inserted in the pack is objectively incorrect because these eggs are no different from ordinary eggs. 85. In this respect, mention should be made of Article 2(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/112 of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of laws of the Member States related to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer and the related advertising, [FN17] which is worded as follows: 1. The labelling and methods used must not: FN17 [1979] O.J. L33/1.

(a) be such as could mislead the purchaser to a material degree, particularly: (i) ... (ii) by attributing to the foodstuff effects or properties which it does not possess; (iii) by suggesting that the foodstuff possesses special characteristics when in fact similar foodstuffs possess such characteristics. 86. Lastly, there are statements which are objectively correct but which do not reflect the entire truth. This is where the most difficult problems lie. 87. If the information omitted would be likely to shed a completely different light on the information provided, the conclusion must be that the consumer has been misled. 88. The term "six-grain" could fall into this category, if it were to be firmly established that the six grains accounted for only 60 per cent of the composition of the feed of Gut Springenheide's hens, whilst giving the impression that the hens were fed exclusively on these six grains. 89. The appeal court, cited by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, considers that this description goes along with the "fad for cereals" and gives the impression that the eggs have something special, whereas that court is persuaded they have no advantages over other eggs (page 5 of the reference for a preliminary ruling). 90. It therefore remains to be determined whether, in view of the sway exerted by the "cereals' fad" over German consumers, even a reasonably circumspect consumer might be taken in by this impression and so be led to buy the eggs in question. 91. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht could settle this question itself if *1399 it is persuaded that this is the case. Otherwise, Community law does not prohibit recourse to a survey of a representative sample of consumers or to an expert opinion. 92. I therefore propose that the reply to be given to the third question should be that the objective concept of purchaser to be used is that of the average, reasonably circumspect consumer. In order to determine whether a statement intended to promote sales, within the meaning of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation 1907/90, is likely to mislead such a purchaser, account should be taken of the terms and purpose of the Regulation, the factual accuracy of the statement, its lack of ambiguity and the verifiable nature, for the authorities, of the information that it contains.

The second question 93. This question is put to the Court in the event that the reply to the first question indicates that consumers' actual expectations must be determined in concrete terms. 94. Since I concluded above that the national court was under no obligation to conduct an investigation of this kind but that Community law did not preclude it from doing so in cases where this seemed to it to be appropriate, I consider that a reply to the second question will be of assistance.

Part (a) of the second question

95. The referring court asks first whether it is the concept of the informed average consumer which counts or that of the casual consumer. 96. I propose that the Court should find that, even where the hypothesis mentioned by the second question is correct, it is the opinion of the informed average consumer which counts. 97. The casual consumer does not pay enough attention to the fine print on a product but is more likely to be influenced by the colour of the pack, by the designs on the pack or by slogans which are so exaggerated that it is not even necessary to prohibit them, such as, "The egg that will get you going for the day". 98. We have also seen above that in its judgments the Court has always adopted an interpretation of the concept of consumer consisting of a reasonably circumspect individual capable of taking in, with some attention, the information appearing on products which he is invited to buy. 99. Advocate General Tesauro rightly stated, in his Opinion in the X (or Nissan) case, that "vigilantibus, non dormientibus iura succurrunt". [FN18] FN18 [1992] E.C.R. I-145. 100. Moreover, it is clear that the various Regulations mentioned above also presuppose a reasonably attentive consumer, since they *1400 presuppose that he is capable of noticing the sometimes subtle distinctions between different terms such as "semi-intensive eggs" ["élevées en plein air"] and "free range eggs" ["élevées en libre parcours"]. [FN19] FN19 Annex 2 to Regulation 1274/91.

Part (b) of the second question 101. This sub-question is worded as follows: Can the proportion of consumers needed to prove a crucial consumer expectation be determined in percentage terms? 102. The case-law of the Court provides only one indication in this regard. This was in the judgment in the X (or Nissan) case, where the Court used the expression "a significant number of consumers". However, neither in that judgment nor in others did it specify the point at which the number of misled consumers becomes significant. 103. Like the Commission, I am therefore of the opinion that it is on the basis of the circumstances of each individual case that a national court has to establish whether a percentage of misled consumers is significant. 104. Given, as we have seen, that the consumer is primarily to be considered capable of discernment, the percentage in question must be fixed at a sufficiently high level. 105. This is especially the case in situations in which a too pessimistic view of consumers' capacity, as a result of which a very low percentage is fixed, could upset the balance which in its case law the Court seeks to achieve between the requirements relating to the protection of consumers and the free movement of

goods. The latter could be affected where imported goods are involved. 106. The Commission also states that: the German courts, in case law going back several decades, particularly in the competition law field, have developed the principle whereby a percentage of 10 to 15 per cent of consumers misled--depending on the particular case-- could still be considered to be insignificant. Clearly, stricter criteria should be applied to advertising statements concerning food and relating to health and it should be considered that even a percentage of less than 10 per cent of consumers misled is no longer insignificant. 107. It seems to me that the guideline thus developed by the German courts is quite appropriate. Since the statements at issue in the main proceedings are not such as to encourage the consumer to purchase a product hazardous to health, the figure of 15 per cent could be indicated, provided that the Bundesverwaltungsgericht considered that it was necessary to investigate consumers' actual expectations. 108. As I fully agree with the Commission's views on parts (a) and (b) of the second question, I also propose that the Court should adopt the replies suggested by the Commission. *1401 109. It remains for me to make a final comment on the role of the national court. The Commission dwells at some length on the question whether, in the present case, it is for this Court or for the national court to determine whether or not the description in question is likely to mislead the purchaser. It notes that, in a number of cases, the Court has ruled on this question itself. [FN20] It should be emphasised, however, that those cases were somewhat different from the situation in the present case. FN20 See Case C-238/89, Pall Corp v. J. Dahlhausen & Co. [1990] E.C.R. I-4827; the Yves Rocher and X (Nissan) cases and Case C-315/92, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb v. Clinique Laboratoires and Estée Lauder Cosmetics [1994] E.C.R. I-317. 110. In those cases it was a matter of assessing the lawfulness under Community law of national measures restricting the free movement of goods and allegedly justified by mandatory requirements, within the meaning of the Court's case law relating to the free movement of goods. However, in this particular case, the problem is a different one: the Court is asked to provide the national court with the criteria for interpretation which it needs in order to be able to apply a piece of secondary legislation to the facts before it. 111. I therefore see no reason to depart from the approach which the Court has always taken in its judgments concerning Regulation 1907/90, namely in the Gutshof-EI and Gold-EI Erzeugerverbund cases and in the Paris case, concerning an earlier, similar Regulation. In all those cases, the Court confined itself to stating the criteria enabling the national court to determine whether or not the descriptions at issue were misleading.

Conclusion

112. In view of the foregoing, I propose that the Court should reply to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht in the following terms:

First question Council Regulation 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs, in particular Article 10(2)(e) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a statement designed to promote sales is likely to mislead the purchaser, reference should be made to an objective concept of purchaser which is open only to legal interpretation. However, Community law does not preclude the national court from commissioning surveys or polls on consumers' actual expectations if it considers this to be necessary.

Third question The objective concept of purchaser to be used is that of the average, reasonably circumspect consumer. In order to determine whether a statement designed to promote sales is likely to mislead such a purchaser, within the meaning of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation *1402 1907/90, account should be taken of the terms and purpose of the Regulation, the factual accuracy of the statement, its lack of ambiguity and the verifiable nature, for the authorities, of the information that it contains.

Second question (a) It is the view of the informed average consumer which counts in determining whether a statement designed to promote sales is likely to mislead. (b) It is for the national court ruling on the question whether a statement or description is likely to mislead consumers to establish, in the light of the circumstances of each particular case and the principle that Community law protects the informed average consumer, from which point in percentage terms a group of consumers misled by an advertising statement is no longer insignificant so that it is justified to ban the use of that statement. JUDGMENT [1] By order of 8 February 1996, received by the Court on 20 June 1996, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 E.C. three questions on the interpretation of Council Regulation 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs. [FN21] FN21 [1990] O.J. L173/5. [2] The questions have been raised in proceedings brought by Gut Springenheide GmbH (hereinafter "Gut Springenheide") and its director, Rudolf Tusky, against Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt--Amt für

Lebensmittelüberwachung (Chief Administrative Officer of the Rural District of Steinfurt--Office for Supervision of Foodstuffs, hereinafter "the Office for Supervision of Foodstuffs") concerning a description appearing on packs of eggs marketed by Gut Springenheide and an insert enclosed in the packs. Community legislation [3] Council Regulation 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs [FN22] provides for the adoption of marketing standards relating in particular to grading by quality and weight, packaging, storage, transport, presentation and marketing of eggs. On the basis of that regulation, the Council adopted Regulation 1907/90, which repealed and replaced Regulation 2772/75 of 29 October 1975 on marketing standards for eggs. [FN23] FN22 [1975] O.J. L282/49. FN23 [1975] O.J. L282/56. [4] Article 10(1) of Regulation 1907/90 lists the particulars which packs of eggs must bear. These include the name or business name, and *1403 address of the undertaking which has packed the eggs or had them packed; however the name, business name or the trade mark used by that undertaking may be shown only if it contains no wording incompatible with the regulation relating to the quality or freshness of the eggs, to the type of farming used for their production or to the origin of the eggs (Article 10(1)(a)). [5] Article 10(2) of the Regulation provides that packs may also carry certain additional information, including statements designed to promote sales, provided that such statements and the manner in which they are made are not likely to mislead the purchaser (Article 10(2)(e)). That provision was amended by Council Regulation 2617/93 of 21 September 1993 [FN24] so as to make clear that the optional additional information for publicity purposes on egg packs may include symbols and refer to eggs and to other items. However that amendment is of no relevance in the present case. FN24 [1993] O.J. L240/1. [6] Under the first subparagraph of Article 10(3) of Regulation 1907/90, further dates and indications concerning the type of farming and the origin of the eggs may only be used in accordance with rules to be laid down under the procedure set out in Article 17 of Regulation 2771/75. Those rules are to cover in particular the terms used in indications of the type of farming and the criteria concerning the origin of the eggs. [7] Article 14 of Regulation 1907/90 provides that packs may not bear any indications other than those laid down in the Regulation. [8] On 15 May 1991, the Commission adopted Regulation 1274/91 introducing detailed rules for implementing Regulation 1907/90. [FN25] Article 18 of that

Regulation lists, in particular, the terms indicating the type of farming as referred to in Article 10(3) of Regulation 1907/90 which eggs as well as small packs may carry. Article 18 was amended by Commission Regulation 2401/95 of 12 October 1995. [FN26] FN25 [1991] O.J. L121/11. FN26 [1995] O.J. L246/6. The main proceedings [9] Gut Springenheide markets eggs ready-packed under the description "6- Korn--10 frische Eier" (six-grain--10 fresh eggs). According to the company, the six varieties of cereals in question account for 60 per cent of the feed mix used to feed the hens. A slip of paper enclosed in each pack of eggs extols the beneficial effect of this feed on the quality of the eggs. [10] On 24 July 1989, having repeatedly advised Gut Springenheide of its reservations with regard to the description "six-grain--10 fresh eggs" and the pack insert, the Office for the Supervision of Foodstuffs gave the company notice that it must remove them. Also, a fine was imposed on its director, Rudolf Tusky, on 5 September 1990. *1404 [11] By judgment of 11 November 1992, the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court), Münster, dismissed the action brought by Gut Springenheide and Rudolf Tusky against that decision on the ground that the description and the pack insert infringed paragraph 17(1) of the Lebensmittel-und Bedarfsgegenständegesetz (Foodstuffs and Consumer Goods Law) under which misleading descriptions were prohibited. [12] Gut Springenheide and Rudolf Tusky appealed unsuccessfully against that judgment. The Appeal Court considered that the description and the pack insert in question infringed Article 10(1)(a) and (2)(e) of Regulation 1907/90. According to that Court, the description "six-grain--10 fresh eggs", which is also a trade mark, and the pack insert were likely to mislead a significant proportion of consumers in that they implied falsely that the feed given to the hens is made up exclusively of the six cereals indicated and that the eggs have particular characteristics. [13] Gut Springenheide and Rudolf Tusky then brought an appeal on a point of law before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court). They argued that the description and the pack insert at issue provided the consumer with vital information and that the Appeal Court had not produced any expert opinion to prove that they misled the purchaser. [14] The Bundesverwaltungsgericht took the view that the outcome of the proceedings turned on Article 10 of Regulation 1907/90, but had doubts regarding the interpretation of Article 10(2)(e), which allows packs to bear statements designed to promote sales provided that they are not likely to mislead the purchaser. According to the referring court, that provision could be interpreted in two ways. Either the misleading nature of the statements in

question is to be assessed in the light of the actual expectations of consumers, in which case those expectations ought, if necessary, to be ascertained by means of a survey of a representative sample of consumers or on the basis of an expert's report, or the provision in question is based on an objective notion of a purchaser, which is only open to legal interpretation, irrespective of the actual expectations of consumers. [15] Accordingly, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ordered that proceedings be stayed and the following questions be referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 1. In order to assess whether, for the purposes of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation 1907/90, statements designed to promote sales are likely to mislead the purchaser, must the actual expectations of the consumers to whom they are addressed be determined, or is the aforesaid provision based on a criterion of an objectified concept of a purchaser, open only to legal interpretation? 2. If it is consumers' actual expectations which matter, the following questions arise: (a) Which is the proper test: the view of the informed average consumer or that of the casual consumer? *1405 (b) Can the proportion of consumers needed to prove a crucial consumer expectation be determined in percentage terms? 3. If an objectified concept of a purchaser open only to legal interpretation is the right test, how is that concept to be defined. Preliminary considerations [16] In the first place, the French Government expresses doubts about the admissibility of the questions referred, since Regulation 1907/90 came into force on 1 October 1990, that is to say, after the events in issue in the main proceedings. [17] On this point, it should be noted, first, that the provisions of Article 10(2)(e) of that Regulation which are of relevance in the present case are substantially equivalent to those contained in the second paragraph of Article 21 of Regulation 2772/75, as amended by Council Regulation 1831/84 of 19 June 1984, [FN27] which Regulation 1907/90 repealed and replaced. FN27 [1984] O.J. L172/2. [18] Secondly, Gut Springenheide, the German Government and the Commission all pointed out at the hearing that, since, in the main proceedings, the appellants seek to have their practices declared to be in compliance with the rules in force, the referring Court must take account of the provisions applicable at the time when it gives judgment, or, at the very least, those in force when the action was brought. Thus, the action in the main proceedings does not concern the fine imposed on the director of the appellant company. [19] The questions referred by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht must therefore be answered. [FN28]

FN28 See, to that effect, Case C-203/90, Gutshof-EI [1992] E.C.R. I-1003; [1994] 1 C.M.L.R. 392, para. [12]. [20] The French Government also takes the view that there is no need to consider the interpretation of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation 1907/90, sought by the referring court, because that provision prohibits in any event a description such as that in issue in this case. It argues that the description "six-grain--10 fresh eggs" refers to the feeding of laying hens and therefore concerns the type of poultry farming as referred to in Article 10(3) of the Regulation. Article 18(1) of Regulation 1274/91, which lists exhaustively the terms, indicating the type of farming that may appear on packs, does not list the description in issue. [21] That interpretation cannot be upheld. [22] Under Article 18 of Regulation 1274/91, as amended by Regulation 2401/95, small packs containing a certain category of eggs may carry one of the following terms to indicate the type of farming as referred to in Article 10(3) of Regulation 1907/90: "Free range eggs", "Semi-intensive eggs", "Deep litter eggs", "Perchery eggs (Barn eggs)" and "Eggs from caged hens". Those terms may be used only for eggs produced in poultry enterprises meeting the criteria set out in *1406 Annex II to the regulation, which essentially concern the ground or floor area available for the hens, and not the type of feed. [23] According to the 18th recital of Regulation 1274/91, those provisions are intended to safeguard the consumer from misleading statements which might otherwise be made with the fraudulent intention to obtain prices higher than those prevailing for eggs of hens raised in batteries. They are thus confined to regulating the description of the type of farming which egg packs may bear, irrespective of the type of feed given to the animals, which in any case does not depend on the type of farming. [24] Commission Regulation 1538/91 of 5 June 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Regulation 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultry [FN29] does not support any other conclusion. FN29 [1991] O.J. L143/11. [25] Whilst it is true that Article 10 of that Regulation, read together with its Annex IV, includes amongst the optional descriptions of the type of farming some referring to the type of feed, those are separate rules, with specific provisions, which, for the reasons given by the Advocate General at paragraphs 31 to 38 of his Opinion, cannot be relied on in this case in order to interpret Regulation 1274/91. [26] It follows from the foregoing that the provisions of Regulations 1907/90 and 1274/91 regarding the descriptions of the type of farming of laying hens do not preclude egg packs from bearing a description such as "six-grain--10 fresh eggs". The questions referred for a preliminary ruling

[27] By its three questions, which it is appropriate to answer together, the referring Court is essentially asking the Court of Justice to define the concept of consumer to be used as a standard for determining whether a statement designed to promote sales of eggs is likely to mislead the purchaser, in breach of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation 1907/90. [28] In answering those questions, it should first be noted that provisions similar to Article 10(2)(e), intended to prevent consumers from being misled, also appear in a number of pieces of secondary legislation, applying generally or in particular fields, such as Council Directive 79/112 of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer [FN30] or Council Regulation 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying down general rules of the description and presentation of wines and grape musts. [FN31] FN30 [1979] O.J. L33/1. FN31 [1989] O.J. L232/13. [29] The protection of consumers, competitors and the general *1407 public against misleading advertising is also regulated by Council Directive 84/450 of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising. [FN32] Under Article 2(2) of that Directive, misleading advertising means any advertising which in any way, including its presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches and which, by reason of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behaviour or which, for those reasons, injures or is likely to injure a competitor. FN32 [1984] O.J. L250/17. [30] There have been several cases in which the Court of Justice has had to consider whether a description, trade mark or promotional text is misleading under the provisions of the Treaty or of secondary legislation. Whenever the evidence and information before it seemed sufficient and the solution clear, it has settled the issue itself rather than leaving the final decision for the national court. [FN33] FN33 See, in particular, Case C-362/88, GB-INNO-BM [1990] E.C.R. I-667; [1991] 2 C.M.L.R. 801; Case C-238/89, Pall [1990] E.C.R. I-4827; Case C- 126/91, Yves Rocher [1993] E.C.R. I-2361; Case C-315/92, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb [1994] E.C.R. I-317; Case C-456/93, Langguth [1995] E.C.R. I-1737; [1995] 2 C.M.L.R. 867; and Case C-470/93, Mars [1995] E.C.R. I-1923. [31] In those cases, in order to determine whether the description, trade mark or promotional description or statement in question was liable to mislead the

purchaser, the Court took into account the presumed expectations of an average consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, without ordering an expert's report or commissioning a consumer research poll. [32] So, national courts ought, in general, to be able to assess, on the same conditions, any misleading effect of a description or statement designed to promote sales. [33] It should be noted, further, that, in other cases in which it did not have the necessary information at its disposal or where the solution was not clear from the information before it, the Court has left it for the national court to decide whether the description, trade mark or promotional description or statement in question was misleading or not. [FN34] FN34 See, in particular, Gutshof-EI, cited above; Case 94/82, De Kikvorsch [1983] E.C.R. 947; [1984] 2 C.M.L.R. 323; and Case 313/94, Graffione [1996] E.C.R. I-6039; [1997] 1 C.M.L.R. 925. [34] In Case C-373/90 X [FN35] in which Directive 84/450 was in point, the Court held, inter alia, that it was for the national court to ascertain in the circumstances of the particular case and bearing in mind the consumers to which the advertising was addressed, whether advertising describing cars as new despite the fact that they had been registered for the purposes of importation, without ever having been *1408 driven on a road, could be misleading in so far as, on the one hand, it sought to conceal the fact that the cars advertised as new were registered before importation and, on the other hand, that fact would have deterred a significant number of consumers from making a purchase. The Court also held that advertising regarding the lower prices of the cars could be held to be misleading only if it were established that the decision to buy on the part of a significant number of consumers to whom the advertising in question was addressed was made in ignorance of the fact that the lower price of the vehicles was matched by a smaller number of accessories on the cars sold by the parallel importer. FN35 [1992] E.C.R. I-131, paras [15] and [16]. [35] The Court has not therefore ruled out the possibility that, in certain circumstances at least, a national court might decide, in accordance with its own national law, to order an expert's opinion or commission a consumer research poll for the purpose of clarifying whether a promotional description or statement is misleading or not. [36] In the absence of any Community provision on this point, it is for the national court, which may find it necessary to order such a survey, to determine, in accordance with its own national law, the percentage of consumers misled by a promotional description or statement that, in its view, would be sufficiently significant in order to justify, where appropriate, banning its use. [37] The answer to be given to the questions referred must therefore be that, in

order to determine whether a statement or description designed to promote sales of eggs is liable to mislead the purchaser, in breach of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation 1907/90, the national court must take into account the presumed expectations which it evokes in an average consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. However, Community law does not preclude the possibility that, where the national court has particular difficulty in assessing the misleading nature of the statement or description in question, it may have recourse, under the conditions laid down by its own national law, to a consumer research poll or an expert's report as guidance for its judgment. Costs [38] The costs incurred by the German, French, Austrian and Swedish Governments and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Order On those grounds, THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) in answer to the questions referred to it by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 8 February 1996, *1409 HEREBY RULES: In order to determine whether a statement intended to promote sales of eggs is liable to mislead the purchaser, in breach of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs, the national court must take into account the presumed expectations which it evokes in an average consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. However, Community law does not preclude the possibility that, where the national court has particular difficulty in assessing the misleading nature of the statement or description in question, it may have recourse, under the conditions laid down by its own national law, to a consumer research poll or an expert's report as guidance for its judgment.

(c) Sweet & Maxwell Limited [1999] 1 C.M.L.R. 1383 END OF DOCUMENT