Opinion of the Advocate-General
1 By the question which it has referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC), the Cour d'Appel (Court of Appeal), Lyon, France, is asking the Court of Justice for an interpretation of the combined provisions of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC), which prohibits, between Member States, quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect, and Article 14 of Directive 79/112/EEC (1) (hereinafter `Directive 79/112') on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs.
I - The facts in the main proceedings
2 The Cour d'Appel states in its judgment that, during an inspection carried out in June 1996 at the Géant hypermarket (Casino Group) in Clermond-Ferrand, officials of the Direction de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des Fraudes (Department of Competition and Consumer Protection) found:
- that the labelling on 432 bottles of Coca-Cola, 47 bottles of Merrydown cider and 22 bottles of Red Raw ginger ale was not in French, save for the indications of volume and alcohol content;
- that advertisements showed bottles of the OD (Old Deadly) Pirat and Shock brands as cider, whereas those products did not conform to that description, which is reserved for alcoholic drinks made from apples;
- that the shelf labelling of the products OD Pirat, Snake Bite and Blackadder also represented those products as ciders.
The officials presented their findings in an official report drawn up at the conclusion of the inspection.
3 In court, Mr Geffroy, who is the defendant in the criminal proceedings, pleaded in his defence, as to the lack of labelling in French: that the Coca-Cola drinks had been bought in Great Britain; that this was a well-known product; that the consumer could not consider himself inconvenienced by labelling in English which could be easily understood by anybody; that there was a sign giving a translation of those labels, but that a customer had probably made it fall to the bottom of the display unit; and that the suppliers of Merrydown ciders and Red Raw beers had made a mistake by not providing stickers in French for attachment to those drinks, as they had been requested to do.
As to the descriptions of the ciders, he pleaded that, even though three products had been described by the shelf labelling as ciders, they had in fact been put on sale on the beers shelf.
4 By judgment of 18 November 1997, the Tribunal de Police (Local Criminal Court), Saint-Étienne, found Mr Geffroy guilty of 506 offences of holding for sale, selling or offering for sale foodstuffs with misleading labelling, sentenced him to 501 fines of FRF 50 each and 5 fines of FRF 2 000 each and declared SNC Casino France civilly liable.
Mr Geffroy, Casino and the Ministère Public (Public Prosecutor's Office) have all appealed against that judgment before the Cour d'Appel, Lyon.
II - The question referred for a preliminary ruling
5 In order to settle that case, the Cour d'Appel, Lyon, decided to stay the proceedings and, in accordance with Article 177 of the EC Treaty, ask the Court of Justice:
`... for a ruling as to whether the combined provisions of Article 30 of the Treaty and Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 preclude the application of national legislation such as that contained in Decree No 84-1147 of 7 December 1984, implementing the Law of 1 August 1905 which was applicable at the time, as amended by Article L. 213-1 et seq. of the Code de la Consommation.'
III - The Community legislation
6 The national court seeks from the Court of Justice an interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty, which is worded as follows:
`Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall, without prejudice to the following provisions, be prohibited between Member States.'
7 It also requests an interpretation of Article 14 of Directive 79/112:
`Member States shall refrain from laying down requirements more detailed than those already contained in Articles 3 to 11 concerning the manner in which the particulars provided for in Article 3 and Article 4(2) are to be shown.
The Member States shall, however, ensure that the sale of foodstuffs within their own territories is prohibited if the particulars provided in Article 3 and Article 4(2) do not appear in a language easily understood by purchasers, unless other measures have been taken to ensure that the purchaser is informed. This provision shall not prevent such particulars from being indicated in various languages.'
8 In order to interpret those two provisions, the Court will also need to take into account the following articles of the same directive:
Article 2
`1. The labelling and methods used must not:
(a) be such as could mislead the purchaser to a material degree, particularly:
(i) as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufacture or production,
...'
Article 3
`1. In accordance with Articles 4 to 14 and subject to the exceptions contained therein, indication of the following particulars alone shall be compulsory on the labelling of foodstuffs:
(1) the name under which the product is sold;
(2) the list of ingredients;
(3) in the case of prepackaged foodstuffs, the net quantity;
(4) the date of minimum durability or, in the case of foodstuffs which, from the microbiological point of view, are highly perishable, the "use by" date; (2)
(5) any special storage conditions or conditions of use;
(6) the name or business name and address of the manufacturer or packager, or of a seller established within the Community;
...
(7) particulars of the place of origin or provenance in the cases where failure to give such particulars might mislead the consumer to a material degree as to the true origin or provenance of the foodstuff;
(8) instructions for use when it would be impossible to make appropriate use of the foodstuff in the absence of such instructions;
(9) with respect to beverages containing more than 1.2 % by volume of alcohol, the actual alcoholic strength by volume. (3)
...'
IV - The French legislation
9 Article R. 112-7 of the Code de la Consommation (Consumer Code) provides, so far as is relevant to this case, that the labelling and methods used must not be such as to give rise to confusion in the mind of the purchaser or the consumer, particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, conservation, origin or provenance, method of manufacture or production. That article of the Code de la Consommation corresponds to Article 3 of Decree No 84-1147 of 7 December 1984 implementing the Law of 1 August 1905 on frauds and falsifications relating to products or services concerning the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs, which was incorporated in the Code de la Consommation.
10 Under Article R. 112-8 of that Code (which corresponds to Article 4 of Decree No 84-1147), all particulars shown on labelling must be easy to understand and be written in French, with no abbreviations other than those provided for by legislation or international agreements. They must appear in an obvious place, in such a way as to be visible, clearly legible and indelible. They must not be in any way concealed, obscured or separated by other indications or images.
V - The proceedings before the Court of Justice
11 Written observations in the present proceedings have been submitted, within the period prescribed for that purpose by Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, by the defendant in the national criminal proceedings, the French, Austrian and United Kingdom Governments, and the Commission.
At the hearing, which was held on 20 October 1999, the representative of Mr Geffroy and Casino, as well as those of the French Government and the Commission, appeared in order to present their observations orally.
VI - Examination of the questions raised
12 The wording of the question referred by the national court, requesting an interpretation of Article 30 of the Treaty and Article 14 of Directive 79/112, is not exactly distinguished by its clarity.
13 However, it is clear from the documents in the file that the criminal proceedings instituted in France against Mr Geffroy arise from his being charged with having infringed Articles 3 and 4 of Decree No 84-1147 of 7 December 1984 incorporated in the Code de la Consommation. The first of those articles states that labelling must not be such as to give rise to confusion in the mind of the consumer, especially as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and its nature, and the second provides that all particulars shown on labelling must be easy to understand and be written in French.
14 I therefore deduce that the two Community provisions whose interpretation is sought are to be applied to a case which needs to be broken down into two parts for purposes of analysis, namely, the linguistic requirements which a Member State may impose with regard to the labelling of foodstuffs imported from other Member States for marketing within its territory, and the requirement that labelling should not give rise to confusion in the mind of the purchaser.
I shall deal with the two parts in that order.
A - Linguistic requirements
15 The defendant in the criminal proceedings, the Austrian Government and the Commission all take the view that the French legislation goes beyond what is permitted under Article 14 of Directive 79/112 by requiring, without allowing any alternative, the use of French on the labelling of foodstuffs. The French and United Kingdom Governments, on the other hand, consider that the Community legislation does not preclude Member States from requiring, for the particulars to be included on the label, the use of the language of the State in which the product is marketed, since the language most easily understood by the purchaser is that of the State in which the product is sold.
16 Because differences which existed between the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on the labelling of foodstuffs impeded the free circulation of those products and could lead to unequal conditions of competition, at the end of 1978 the Council adopted Directive 79/112 to approximate those laws so as to contribute to the smooth functioning of the common market. In the recitals in the preamble to the directive, the Community legislature states that the prime consideration for any rules on the labelling of foodstuffs should be the need to inform and protect the consumer. (4)
17 To that end, the second paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 79/112 provides that the Member States are to ensure that the sale of foodstuffs within their own territories is prohibited if the particulars which must appear on the labels in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 and Article 4(2) do not appear in a language easily understood by purchasers, unless other measures have been taken to ensure that the purchaser is informed.
18 The obligation on Member States is thus to exclude from trade any products whose labelling is not easily understood by the purchaser, although the use of a specific language is not prescribed.
In order to understand the meaning of that provision, it is necessary to turn to the interpretation given by the Court of Justice in its case-law. This is not the first time that a national court has asked the Court to interpret Article 14 of Directive 79/112. On the contrary, there is a settled body of case-law on the limits which Community law imposes on Member States when they lay down the linguistic requirements applicable to the marketing within their territories of foodstuffs coming from other Member States.
19 In 1991, the Court interpreted Article 14 of Directive 79/112 at the request of a Belgian court which was required to apply the legislation by which that directive had been transposed into domestic law. (5) That legislation made it obligatory for the statutory particulars on labels to appear in at least the language or languages of the linguistic region where the foodstuffs were sold. The question arose in the context of proceedings between various companies which imported and distributed mineral waters in Belgium and the Peeters company. The former considered themselves to have suffered damage as a result of the practice of the latter, which was established in the Flemish-speaking region of the country, and had started proceedings against it on the ground that the bottles of mineral water which it sold were labelled only in French or in German whereas, under the Belgian legislation, the particulars should, in that region, have appeared in Dutch.
20 In its judgment the Court held that, according to a literal interpretation, Article 14 does not preclude a national law which allows, for the information of the consumer, only the use of the language or languages of the region where the products are sold, in so far as such a law would allow purchasers to understand easily the particulars appearing on the products. The language of the linguistic region is the language which seems to be the most `easily understood'. However, the Court added that such an interpretation of Article 14 would fail to take account of the aims of the directive which seeks in particular to eliminate the differences which exist between national provisions and which hinder the free movement of goods. It is because of that aim that Article 14 is limited to the requirement of a language easily understood by the purchaser (6) and provides that the entry of foodstuffs into the territory of a Member State may be authorised where the relevant particulars do not appear in a language easily understood if `other measures have been taken to ensure that the purchaser is informed'. (7)
The Court concluded that the obligation to use exclusively the language of the linguistic region constituted a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, prohibited by Article 30 of the Treaty. Consequently, it replied categorically that Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and Article 14 of Directive 79/112 preclude a national law from requiring the exclusive use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs, without allowing for the possibility of using another language easily understood by purchasers or of ensuring that the purchaser is informed by other measures. (8)
21 However, that reply was not considered sufficiently clear by the Belgian court before which the plaintiffs in the main proceedings had lodged an appeal, and three further questions were referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, asking it, in essence, to clarify its 1991 judgment. In its order for reference, the Belgian court pointed out that the national legislation did not contain any provision prohibiting the use of another language easily understood, but merely provided that the particulars required should at least appear in the language or languages of the linguistic region in which the foodstuffs were placed on the market. The legislation in question therefore allowed for the possibility of using other languages as well as the obligatory use of the language of the linguistic region.
22 In its second Piageme judgment, (9) the Court of Justice held that the expression `a language easily understood' used in Article 14 of the directive is not equivalent to `the official language of the Member State' or `the language of the region'. In reality, that expression is designed to ensure that the consumer is provided with information rather than to impose the use of a specific language. The Court went on to contrast the requirement to use a `language easily understood', imposed by Directive 79/112 on the labelling of foodstuffs, with the stricter obligation imposed by other Community provisions, such as Directive 92/27/EEC (10) on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets, Article 8 of which provides expressly that the official language or languages of the Member State where the product is placed on the market must be used.
23 In order to clarify the previous judgment, the Court stated that the obligation to use a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs, even if the use of other languages at the same time is not precluded, also constitutes a requirement stricter than the obligation to use a language easily understood, and that neither Article 128 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 151 EC), relating to culture, nor Article 129a of the EC Treaty (now after amendment, Article 153 EC), dealing with consumer protection, authorise a Member State to substitute a more stringent rule for that laid down in the directive. (11)
As far as is relevant to the present case, the specific answer given by the Court was that Article 14 of Directive 79/112 precludes a Member State, having regard to the use of a language easily understood by purchasers, from requiring the use of a language which is that most widely spoken in the area in which the product is offered for sale, even if the use at the same time of another language is not excluded. (12)
24 More recently, in a 1998 judgment, (13) the Court held that Article 14 of the directive does not preclude national legislation which, as regards language requirements, prescribes the use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs but also permits, as an alternative, the use of another language easily understood by purchasers. Unlike the legislation at issue in the two previous cases, the German legislation, whilst prescribing the use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs, also allowed, as an alternative, the use of another language easily understood by purchasers and did not impose a stricter obligation than that of using a language that was easily understood.
25 Whenever it has had occasion to do so, the Court has interpreted Article 14 of the directive as precluding national legislation which requires the use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs, even if supplemented, where appropriate, by the use of another language. I am of the opinion that that article will, a fortiori, much more preclude legislation which, like the French legislation at issue, (14) by requiring all particulars on labelling to be written in French, (15) without allowing, as an alternative, the use of another language easily understood by consumers or for the purchaser to be informed by other measures, goes beyond the requirements of the directive.
Moreover, as the Court stated in the Piageme I judgment, (16) the obligation exclusively to use the language of the linguistic region - which in this case coincides with the territory of the Member State itself - constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, prohibited by Article 30 of the Treaty.
26 Finally, I must refer to Directive 97/4/EC, (17) although only to say that it is not necessary to interpret it since it is not applicable to the main proceedings; that directive amends certain provisions of Directive 79/112, including Article 14, and has been mentioned by the majority of the parties who have submitted observations in the present proceedings. It is apparent from the documents in the file that the defendant in the main proceedings is charged with offences which took place in June 1996 when Directive 97/4/EC had not even been adopted. (18)
27 I take the view, for the reasons set out above, that the answer to be given to the first part of the question referred for a preliminary ruling is that Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of Directive 79/112 preclude national legislation from requiring exclusively the use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs, without allowing for the possibility of using another language easily understood by purchasers or of informing the purchaser by other measures.
B - The requirement that labelling should not cause confusion in the mind of the purchaser
28 The opinions of those who have submitted observations in these proceedings are also divided in this respect.
29 The defendant in the criminal proceedings, the Austrian Government and the United Kingdom Government, which states that at least one of the drinks mentioned in the order for reference (that named `Shock') was lawfully manufactured and marketed as cider within its territory, maintain that both Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of Directive 79/112 preclude a Member State from restricting or prohibiting the sale within its territory of cider lawfully produced and marketed in another Member State on the ground that it does not conform to the definition of that product given by its national legislation.
30 The Commission, on the other hand, takes the view that Article 30 of the Treaty does not preclude national legislation which provides, in general terms, that labelling and the methods used must not be such as to give rise to confusion in the mind of the purchaser or the consumer, especially as to the characteristics of the foodstuff.
31 The French Government claims that the offence with which the defendant is charged is that of misleading advertising, since the labelling of the British ciders did not accord with the presentation of those products in the advertising leaflets distributed by Casino. It states that the inspection did not at any time require any change to be made to the name on the labels of the British ciders on the ground that their composition did not conform to the definition given by the French legislation on ciders.
It adds that the differences between the French and British legislation regulating the manufacture of cider have already been taken into account in an agreement on the labelling of British ciders, concluded in 1993 between the main trade representatives of the cider industry in the United Kingdom and France. (19) That agreement which, as the representative of the French Government confirmed at the hearing, is applied by the great majority of cider manufacturers in the United Kingdom, provides that British ciders are to be described as `cider(s)' and bear the indication `boisson alcoolisée à base de pommes' (alcoholic drink made from apples).
It affirms that, in the present case, the majority of the drinks were labelled in that way and that the report drawn up by the consumer protection inspection was not aimed at requiring changes in the names under which the products are sold.
32 It is not easy to deduce from the national court's order for reference what exactly it is that Mr Geffroy is accused of or the factual and legal context to which Community law is to be applied.
33 As proof of this difficulty, the French Government asserts that Mr Geffroy distributed misleading advertising which could deceive the purchaser; for their part, the Austrian and United Kingdom Governments have understood that he is accused of putting on sale, under the description `cidre', drinks made from apples, which were lawfully manufactured and marketed in another Member State and described as `cider', but whose composition did not conform to the requirements of the French legislation on the manufacture of cider; the Commission is aware of the vagueness which characterises the order for reference and, in its written observations, proposed that, so as to make the national court's task easier, the Court should give the broadest possible reply, providing it with whatever information may be necessary for it to give judgment on the restrictions on the use of the description `cidre' which are contained in the French legislation, although it changed its position at the hearing.
34 But the confusion does not end there, as was demonstrated throughout the hearing. On the one hand, the representative of Mr Geffroy and Casino, referring to documents such as the advertisements distributed or the judgment given by the Tribunal de Police de Saint-Étienne, which he had annexed to his written observations but of which neither the French Government nor the Commission knew the content, insisted that the parties whom he represented were being prosecuted for placing on the market in France cider imported from another Member State where it was lawfully manufactured and marketed on the ground that it did not conform to the French legislation regulating its production and composition.
On the other hand, in its order for reference, the national court mentions that the defendant pleads in his defence, as to the descriptions of the ciders, that even if three products had been described by the shelf labelling as ciders, they were nevertheless put on sale on the beers shelf.
35 I note from the photocopy of the advertising leaflet annexed to Mr Geffroy's observations that the drinks named Blackadder, O.D. Pirat, Snake Bite, Strongbow Ice, Merrydown and Shock are presented in an overall manner as `Les Ciders', with an asterisk referring to a footnote stating `Boissons alcoolisées à base de pommes'. Some of those drinks are described in the leaflet as British cider (this is the case with O.D. Pirat, Merrydown and Shock), whereas others are shown as a blend of beer, cider and blackcurrant liqueur (this is the case with Blackadder) or as a blend of beer and cider (such as Snake Bite, for example).
I must add that none of the legal representatives who attended the hearing was able to tell me, even approximately, the percentage of each product in the blended drinks. It seems surprising to me that, as was stated at the hearing, this question was likewise not looked into by the Tribunal de Police de Saint-Étienne which imposed a fine on Mr Geffroy.
36 The Court has consistently held that the information provided in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court to reply usefully but must also give the governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice. It is the Court's duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties. (20)
37 It is true that, where questions are formulated imprecisely, the Court reserves the right to extract from all the information provided by the national court and from the documents concerning the main proceedings the points of Community law needing to be interpreted, having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute. (21)
38 However, I take the view, in the present case, that the court which has raised the question referred for a preliminary ruling has not defined the legal framework in which the interpretation sought is to be applied, since it refers only to the national legislation on the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs and it is not clear whether that legislation prohibits the marketing in France, under the description of cider, of drinks made from apples which are lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States.
39 That is why I consider that it is not necessary to reformulate the question in order to give the national court a more complete reply. Contrary to what I had decided before the hearing, I shall not, therefore, examine the restrictions which French legislation may impose on the use of the description `cidre' in Decree No 53-978 of 30 September 1953 on cider production policy and the marketing of ciders, perries and similar beverages, for the simple reason that I do not know whether that has any bearing on the conduct with which the defendant in the main proceedings is charged. Consequently, I propose that the Court should confine itself to answering the question as it has been raised.
40 It is apparent from the order for reference that the national provision which the defendant is accused of infringing is Article 3 of Decree No 84-1147, the first paragraph of which corresponds almost word for word to Article 2(1) of Directive 79/112. As provided in the French legislation, the labelling and methods used must not be such as to give rise to confusion in the mind of the purchaser or the consumer, particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, conservation, origin or provenance, and method of manufacture or production.
41 I am of the opinion, as is the Commission, that such a provision, assuming that it could have the effect of hindering the free movement of goods, merely reflects the need for consumer protection and fair trading and would be justified by those imperative requirements.
The Court has held that in the absence of common rules relating to the production and marketing of the product in question it is for Member States to regulate all matters relating to its production, distribution and consumption on their own territory subject, however, to the condition that those rules do not present an obstacle, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, to intra-community trade. (22) However, obstacles to free movement within the Community resulting from disparities between the national laws must be accepted in so far as such rules, applying without distinction to national and imported products, may be justified as being necessary to satisfy mandatory requirements of inter alia the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer. (23)
42 There are no common rules on the production and marketing of the various types of cider in the Community, and Article 3 of Decree No 84/1147 merely reproduces one of the provisions of Directive 79/112, the purpose of which is precisely to approximate the laws of the Member States concerning the labelling of foodstuffs in order to contribute to the smooth functioning of the common market, giving prime consideration to the need to inform and protect the consumer.
43 For the reasons stated, I propose that the Court should reply to the national court that Article 30 of the EC Treaty does not preclude national legislation such as Article 3 of Decree No 84-1147 which provides that the labelling and methods used must not mislead the purchaser or the consumer, especially as to the characteristics of the foodstuff.
VII - Conclusion
44 In the light of the foregoing reasoning, I propose that the Court of Justice should reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel, Lyon, as follows:
(1) Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC 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 preclude national legislation from requiring exclusively the use of a particular language for the labelling of foodstuffs, without allowing for the possibility of using another language easily understood by purchasers or of informing the purchaser by other measures.
(2) Article 30 of the EC Treaty does not preclude national legislation such as Article 3 of Decree No 84-1147 which provides that the labelling and methods used must not mislead the purchaser or the consumer, particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuff.
(1) - Council Directive 79/112/EEC 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 (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1).
(2) - The wording of this item was given in Council Directive 89/395/EEC of 14 June 1989 amending Directive 79/112/EEC (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 17).
(3) - This item was added by Council Directive 86/197/EEC of 26 May 1986 amending Directive 79/112/EEC (OJ 1986 L 144, p. 38).
(4) - First, second and sixth recitals in the preamble to the directive.
(5) - Judgment in Case C-369/89 Piageme and Others [1991] ECR I-2971 (hereinafter `the Piademe I judgment').
(6) - Interpretative Commission communication concerning the use of languages in the marketing of foodstuffs in the light of the judgment in the Peeters case (Piageme I judgment, cited above in footnote 5, OJ 1993 C 345, p. 3). The Commission states, at point 25, that the purpose of the second paragraph of Article 14 is to ban products whose labelling cannot be understood by the purchaser rather than to impose the use of a particular language.
(7) - Ibid., paragraphs 14 and 15.
(8) - Ibid., paragraphs 16 and 17.
(9) - Judgment in Case C-85/94 Piageme and Others [1995] ECR I-2955 (hereinafter `the Piageme II judgment'), paragraphs 15 and 16.
(10) - Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets (OJ 1992 L 113, p. 8).
(11) - Piageme II judgment, cited above in footnote 9, paragraphs 18 and 19.
(12) - Ibid., paragraph 21.
(13) - Judgment in Case C-385/96 Goerres [1998] ECR I-4431, paragraph 21.
(14) - The use of French for the labelling of products is required not only by the Code de la Consommation. Law No 94-665 relating to the use of the French language also provides, in Article 2(1): `Dans la désignation, l'offre, la présentation, le mode d'emploi ou d'utilisation, la description de l'étendue et des conditions de garantie d'un bien, d'un produit ou d'un service, ainsi que dans les factures et quittances, l'emploi de la langue française est obligatoire'.
(15) - Mr Geffroy does not appear to be the only person to have been prosecuted in France for putting on sale foodstuffs not labelled in French. For example, I shall quote from a judgment given on 16 June 1996 by the Tribunal de Police, Nancy, by which a trader was convicted of 2 264 offences of describing a product in a foreign language and fined FRF 2 000 with costs of FRF 150. The product in question was Coca-Cola and the sentence was pronounced on the basis of the following reasoning: `Attendu qu'un produit est désigné non seulement par sa marque mais aussi par son appellation générique; que l'appellation générique du produit "coca-cola" est: "boisson rafraîchissante aux extraits végétaux"; que cette mention, outre la marque, sert aussi à désigner le produit; que cette mention n'était pas rédigée en langue française; que l'infraction de désignation d'un produit en langue étrangère est donc constituée ...'.
(16) - Cited above in footnote 5, paragraph 16.
(17) - Directive 97/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 amending Directive 79/112 (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 21).
(18) - This directive specified 14 August 1998 as the latest date by which Member States were to amend their laws in order to allow trade in products conforming to its provisions.
(19) - The representative of the French Government made it clear during the hearing that this was an agreement concluded by an exchange of letters between the French and English manufacturers, not involving any public body.
(20) - Judgments in Joined Cases C-115/97 to C-117/97 Brentjens' [1999] ECR I-6025, paragraph 39, and Case C-67/96 Albany International [1999] ECR I-5751, paragraph 40; orders in Joined Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98 Charreire and Hirtsmann [1999] ECR I-1963, paragraphs 8 to 10, Case C-325/98 Anssens [1999] ECR I-2969, paragraph 8, and Joined Cases C-128/97 and C-137/97 Testa and Modesti [1998] ECR I-2181, paragraph 6.
(21) - Judgments in Case 251/83 Haug-Adrion [1984] ECR 4277, paragraph 9, and Case C-168/95 Arcaro [1996] ECR I-4705, paragraph 21. See also the judgments in Case 204/87 Bekaert [1988] ECR 2029, paragraphs 5 to 7; Case 20/87 Gauchard [1987] ECR 4879, paragraphs 5 to 7, and Joined Cases 110/78 and 111/78 Van Wesemael and Others [1979] ECR 35, paragraph 21.
(22) - Judgment in Case 788/79 Gilli and Andres [1980] ECR 2071, paragraph 5.
(23) - Judgments in Case 120/78 Rewe [1979] ECR 649, paragraph 8, and Case 182/84 Miro [1985] ECR 3731, paragraph 10.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy