Article 7 2.
Annex I al1 11.
|National ID||I ZR 2/11|
|Common name||Decision type||Supreme court decision|
|Court||Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) - Karlsruhe||Plaintiff(s)||Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH|
|Court translation||German Federal Supreme Court - Karlsruhe||Defendant(s)||RLvs Verlagsgesellschaft mbH|
|Keywords||Scope of the UCP Directive – Full harmonisation, advertisement, black list, full harmonisation, misleading omissions, sponsorship|
+ Expand all
The obligation under German national press law to identify sponsored articles as "advertisement" is compliant with European Union law, and more in particular with the UCP Directive.
The plaintiff is publisher of the weekly local newspaper "Stuttgarter Wochenblatt". The defendant is publisher of the ad newspaper "GOOD NEWS". In June 2009 the defendant published two articles for which it received payment from sponsors. Both articles displayed the graphically highlighted information "Sponsored by [Name of Sponsor]".
The plaintiff is of the opinion that these publications infringe Section 10 of the Press Act for the state of Baden-Wurttemberg (LPresseG), as they are not clearly headlined with the word "Anzeige" (Advertisment) as stipulated by said provision.
Both preceding instances (LG Stuttgart and OLG Stuttgart) had ruled that the respective articles may not be published in "GOOD NEWS" without the respective headline "Advertisement". With this revision, the defendant pursued its claim for dismissal of the lawsuit, as in its opinion Section 10 LPresseG is not applicable as it infringes European Union law.
The court decided that the outcome of this revision depends on the interpretation of article 3, 5 and article 7, 2 and no. 11 of Annex I of the UCP Directive and has therefore suspended the proceeding and referred it for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice pursuant to article 267, 1 (b), 3 of the Treaty.
Do article 7,2 and no. 11 of Annex I to article 5, 5 in conjunction with articles 4 and 3, 5 of the UCP Directive preclude the application of a national provision (here: Section 10 LPresseG) which is intended not only to protect consumers against misleading commercial practices but also to protect the independence of the press and which, in contrast to article 7, 2 and no. 11 of Annex I of the UCP Directive, prohibits any publication for remuneration, irrespective of the purpose thereby pursued, if that publication is not identified by the use of the term ‘advertisement’, unless it is already evident from the arrangement and layout of the publication that it is an advertisement?
The court has decided that the outcome of this revision depends on the interpretation of article 3, 5 and article 7, 2 and no. 11 of Annex I of the UCP Directive and has therefore suspended the proceeding and referred it for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice pursuant to article 267, 1 (b), 3 of the Treaty.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The European Court of Justice ruled (C 391/12) that the obligation under German press law (Section 10 LPresseG) to identify sponsored articles as "advertisement" is not precluded by the UCP Directive.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|