In a judgment delivered on 19 September 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-88/23, Parfümerie Akzente GmbH v KTF Organisation AB that cosmetic goods sold online from Germany to customers in Sweden must have accompanying product information, usage instructions, and safety warnings in the Swedish language, given applicable EU secondary law.
The case was referred to the Court by the Patent and Market Court of Appeal (Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen) sitting within the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) in Stockholm, Sweden.
Background
The case involves a dispute between Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, a German company, and KTF Organisation AB, a Swedish trade association. Parfümerie Akzente promotes and sells cosmetic products online to Swedish consumers, but the products are not labelled in Swedish. KTF sought to prohibit this practice, arguing that it violated Swedish labelling laws.
The legal questions revolve around the interpretation of several pieces of EU secondary law:
- Directive on aerosol dispensers (Directive 75/324).
- Directive on electronic commerce (Directive 2000/31).
- Regulation on cosmetic products (Regulation 1223/2009).
Under the Electronic Commerce Directive, the main issue is whether the requirements for product labelling fall within the ‘coordinated field’ of that Directive, which aims to facilitate the free movement of information society services across the EU. Article 2(h) of that Directive defines the coordinated field, excluding requirements applicable to goods as such, including labelling obligations.
The Court was being asked to examine, inter alia, whether the labelling requirements imposed by the EU Member State where the consumer is located (Sweden) can apply to products sold online by a service provider established in another EU Member State (Germany). Thus, the Court was being asked to consider the balance between facilitating cross-border e-commerce and ensuring consumer protection through adequate labelling.
Judgment of the Court
The Court emphasises the importance of consumer protection, particularly the need for consumers to understand product information. This, given EU secondary law, was crucial for ensuring the safety and proper use of products, especially cosmetic products that may have specific usage instructions and warnings.
For example, Article 8(2) of the Aerosol Dispenses Directive permits EU Member States to require that aerosol dispensers be labelled in their national language(s). And Article 19(5) of Cosmetic Products Regulation allows Member States to determine the language of the information provided on cosmetic products, which aims to ensure that consumers receive information in a language they understand, enhancing consumer protection.
Given this, the Court stated that the coordinated field under Electronic Commerce Directive does not include requirements applicable to goods as such, such as labelling obligations. This interpretation was supported by recital 21 of that Directive, which explicitly excludes labelling obligations from the coordinated field. Therefore, the Court stated that the labelling requirements for cosmetic products sold online do not fall within the coordinated field of the Electronic Commerce Directive.
In formal terms, the operative part of the judgment read
‘Article 2(h) of Electronic Commerce Directive…must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘coordinated field’ does not include requirements concerning the labelling of products promoted and sold on the website of an information society service provider imposed by the Member State in whose territory the consumers targeted by those online marketing measures are located.’
Meaning of the judgment
In layman’s language, this means that there is still the importance of local consumer protection measures, including language requirements for product labelling. In other words, products sold online to consumers in Sweden must comply with Swedish labelling requirements.
This means that even if the products are marketed and sold by a company based in Germany, the labels must be in Swedish to ensure that Swedish consumers can understand the product information, usage instructions, and safety warnings.
Analysis of the judgment
The judgment highlights the complex interplay between facilitating cross-border e-commerce and ensuring robust consumer protection . By clarifying that labelling requirements fall outside the coordinated field of the Electronic Commerce Directive the Court underscored the importance of local consumer protection measures, including local language requirements for product labelling.
The prior Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, delivered in June 2024, in the case reached the same conclusion.
Read the judgment
The judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-88/23, Parfümerie Akzente GmbH v KTF Organisation AB, delivered on 19 September 2024, is available to read here.