Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2025.#Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v GLOBUS Handelshof GmbH & Co. KG.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt – Agriculture and fisheries – Organic products – Regulation (EU) 2018/848 – Article 3(52) – Concept of ‘labelling’ – Concept of ‘label’ – Article 3(53) – Concept of ‘advertising’ – Article 30(1) – Products bearing terms referring to organic production – Article 32(1)(a) – Obligation to indicate the code number of the control authority or control body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject – Inapplicability to advertising leaflets promoting those products.#Case C-745/24.

Provisional text

ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)

18 December 2025 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt – Agriculture and fisheries – Organic products – Regulation (EU) 2018/848 – Article 3(52) – Concept of ‘labelling’ – Concept of ‘label’ – Article 3(53) – Concept of ‘advertising’ – Article 30(1) – Products bearing terms referring to organic production – Article 32(1)(a) – Obligation to indicate the code number of the control authority or control body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject – Inapplicability to advertising leaflets promoting those products )

In Case C‑745/24,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Regional Court, Saarbrücken, Germany), made by decision of 24 September 2024, received at the Court on 24 October 2024, in the proceedings

Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

v

GLOBUS Handelshof GmbH & Co. KG,

THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of O. Spineanu-Matei, President of the Chamber, S. Rodin and N. Piçarra (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: T. Ćapeta,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV, by R. Welzel, Rechtsanwalt,

–        GLOBUS Handelshof GmbH & Co. KG, by M. Grube, Rechtsanwalt,

–        the European Commission, by A. Dawes and M. Zerwes, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to give a decision by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,

makes the following

Order

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the combined provisions of Article 32(1)(a), Article 3(52) and (53) and Article 30(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (OJ 2018 L 150, p. 1).

2        The request has been made in an action for an injunction brought by Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV (‘VSW’), an association combating unfair competition, against GLOBUS Handelshof GmbH & Co. KG (‘Globus’), a company operating several hypermarkets, seeking to prohibit Globus from promoting organic products in its advertising leaflets without indicating the code number of the control authority or control body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject, within the meaning of Article 32(1)(a) of that regulation.

 Legal framework

3        Recitals 6, 9, 15, 17 and 73 of Regulation 2018/848 state:

‘(6)      In view of the objectives of the [European] Union’s organic production policy, the legal framework established for implementing that policy should aim at ensuring fair competition and the proper functioning of the internal market in organic products, at maintaining and justifying consumer confidence in products labelled as organic, and at providing conditions under which the policy can progress in line with production and market developments.

…

(9)      Given the dynamic evolution of the organic sector, Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 [of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1)] identified the need for a future review of the Union rules on organic production, taking into account the experience gained from the application of those rules. The results of that review carried out by the [European] Commission show that the Union legal framework governing organic production should be improved to provide for rules that correspond to the high expectations of consumers and that guarantee sufficient clarity for those to whom they are addressed. Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 should be therefore repealed and replaced by a new Regulation.

…

(15)      Research projects have demonstrated that consumer confidence is crucial in the market for organic food. In the long run, rules that are not trustworthy can jeopardise public confidence and lead to market failure. Therefore, the sustainable development of organic production in the Union should be based on sound production rules which are harmonised at Union level and which meet operators’ and consumers’ expectations regarding the quality of organic products and compliance with the principles and rules laid down in this Regulation.

…

(17)      This Regulation should provide the basis for the sustainable development of organic production and its positive effects on the environment, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market in organic products and fair competition, thereby helping farmers to achieve a fair income, ensuring consumer confidence, protecting consumer interest and encouraging short distribution channels and local production. Those objectives should be achieved through compliance with general and specific principles and general and detailed production rules applicable to organic production.

…

(73)      The labelling of agricultural products and foodstuffs should be subject to the general rules laid down in [Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18)], and in particular to the provisions aimed at preventing labelling that might confuse or mislead consumers. In addition, specific provisions relating to the labelling of organic and in-conversion products should be laid down in this Regulation. They should protect both the interests of operators in having their products correctly identified on the market and in enjoying conditions of fair competition, and the interests of consumers in being able to make informed choices.’

4        Article 1 of Regulation 2018/848, entitled ‘Subject matter’, states:

‘This Regulation establishes the principles of organic production and lays down the rules concerning organic production, related certification and the use of indications referring to organic production in labelling and advertising, as well as rules on controls additional to those laid down in Regulation (EU) 2017/625 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products, amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, (EC) No 396/2005, (EC) No 1069/2009, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulations (EC) No 1/2005 and (EC) No 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC, 96/93/EC and 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC (Official Controls Regulation) (OJ 2017 L 95, p. 1)].’

5        Article 3 of Regulation 2018/848, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides, in points 52 and 53 thereof:

‘(52)      “labelling” means any words, particulars, trade marks, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol relating to a product that are placed on any packaging, document, notice, label, ring or collar that accompanies or refers to that product;

(53)      “advertising” means any presentation of products to the public, by any means other than a label, that is intended or is likely to influence and shape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours in order to directly or indirectly promote the sale of products’.

6        Article 30 of that regulation, entitled ‘Use of terms referring to organic production’, reads as follows:

‘1.      For the purposes of this Regulation, a product shall be regarded as bearing terms referring to organic production where, in the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents, such a product, its ingredients or feed materials used for its production are described in terms suggesting to the purchaser that the product, ingredients or feed materials have been produced in accordance with this Regulation. In particular, the terms listed in Annex IV and their derivatives and diminutives, such as “bio” and “eco”, whether alone or in combination, may be used throughout the Union and in any language listed in that Annex for the labelling and advertising of products referred to in Article 2(1) which comply with this Regulation.

2.      For the products referred to in Article 2(1), the terms referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be used anywhere in the Union, in any language listed in Annex IV, for the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents of a product which does not comply with this Regulation.

Furthermore, no terms, including terms used in trademarks or company names, or practices shall be used in labelling or advertising if they are liable to mislead the consumer or user by suggesting that a product or its ingredients comply with this Regulation.

…’

7        Article 32 of that regulation, entitled ‘Compulsory indications’, provides:

‘1.      Where products bear terms as referred to in Article 30(1), including products labelled as in-conversion products in accordance with Article 30(3):

(a)      the code number of the control authority or control body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject shall also appear in the labelling; and

…

3.      The indications referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article and in Article 33(3) shall be marked in a conspicuous place in such a way as to be easily visible, and shall be clearly legible and indelible.

…’

8        Article 33 of that regulation, entitled ‘Organic production logo of the European Union’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The organic production logo of the European Union may be used in the labelling, presentation and advertising of products which comply with this Regulation.

…’

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

9        Globus, a company in the Globus St. Wendel distribution group, operates hypermarkets in Germany. In January and February 2024, that company distributed advertising leaflets in Gera (Germany) and the surrounding area promoting, in particular, several food products with the indication ‘organic’ and bearing the organic production logo of the European Union, but without the code number of the control authority or control body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject, referred to in Article 32(1)(a) of Regulation 2018/848.

10      VSW brought an action for an injunction against Globus before the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Regional Court, Saarbrücken, Germany), which is the referring court, seeking to prohibit Globus from promoting organic products in its advertising leaflets without indicating that code number. VSW argues that the broad concept of ‘labelling’ referred to in Article 30(1) of Regulation 2018/848, to which Article 32(1) of that regulation refers, covers both ‘labelling’, in the strict sense of Article 3(52) thereof, and ‘advertising’, within the meaning of Article 3(53) of that regulation. According to VSW, that reference therefore extends to advertising relating to organic products the obligation to indicate that code number, as provided for in Article 32(1)(a) of that regulation. It states that the English- and French-language versions of those provisions are more explicit on that point than the German-language version.

11      Globus, for its part, argues that Article 3(52) and (53) of Regulation 2018/848 clearly distinguishes between labelling and advertising and that Article 30(1) of that regulation does not allow those two concepts to be treated in the same way. The obligations concerning products described as being organically produced should apply only to physical flows of goods and the documents accompanying them, to the exclusion of advertising leaflets. Consequently, the code number of the control authority or control body referred to in Article 32(1)(a) of that regulation should be indicated only on the product itself. Globus adds that, if that obligation were to extend to advertising leaflets such as those at issue in the main proceedings, it would be impossible in practice to implement it. At the time of preparing those leaflets, it did not yet know the operator or operators responsible for delivering the products described as being organically produced and therefore could not identify the control authority or control body to which that operator is or those operators are subject.

12      The referring court notes that the expression ‘or refers to that product’, which appears, together with the expression ‘accompanies’, in the definition of the concept of ‘labelling’ in Article 3(52) of Regulation 2018/848, could, as VSW argues, encompass ‘advertising’ within the meaning of Article 3(53) thereof. In so far as advertising leaflets, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, ‘refer’ to the organic products presented therein, they could be considered to be a form of ‘labelling’.

13      In order to exclude the advertising leaflets at issue in the main proceedings from the concept of ‘labelling’, within the meaning of Article 3(52) of Regulation 2018/848, that court draws a distinction between general advertising, which is distant from the product concerned, and specific advertising, which is close to it, a distinction which it bases in particular on Article 32(3) thereof. The referring court concludes from the obligation laid down in that provision for the indications referred to in paragraph 1 of that article to be marked in a conspicuous place in such a way as to be easily visible, and to be clearly legible and indelible, that the latter provision typically refers to the labelling of the product itself and not to advertising that is physically distant from it, such as those leaflets.

14      Moreover, the referring court considers that Article 30(1) of Regulation 2018/848, which it interprets as meaning that ‘the intention is for products to be accompanied by the necessary information’, does not require that advertising leaflets, which are physically separated from the products that they describe with the terms ‘bio’ or ‘eco’, should indicate the code number referred to in Article 32(1)(a) of that regulation, since consumers could obtain such information when purchasing those products. It adds that that conclusion is clear from the English version of that provision, since the term ‘labelling’ does not cover advertising.

15      Like Globus, the referring court notes that, at the time of preparing the advertising leaflet, the seller does not necessarily know the identity of the operator that will deliver the organic products or, consequently, the identity of the control authority or control body referred to in Article 32(1)(a).

16      In those circumstances, the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Regional Court, Saarbrücken) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Must EU law, in particular as regards Regulation [2018/848], be interpreted as meaning that advertising leaflets for a commercial chain, distributed to consumers’ households and covering, in addition to a multitude of other products, organic products within the meaning of that regulation, must include an indication of the code number of the control authority or control body, that is to say, the body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject?

(2)      (a)      Must [Article 3(52)] of Regulation 2018/848 be interpreted as meaning that any “advertising” for an organic product within the meaning of [Article 3(53)] of the regulation is also “labelling” of that product within the meaning of [Article 3(52)] of the regulation?

(b)      Does it follow from Article 32(1) of Regulation 2018/848, with its reference to Article 30(1) of that regulation, that there is an obligation to indicate the code number of the control body even for advertising that is physically separated from the product where, in the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents such a product is described in terms suggesting to the purchaser that the foodstuff derives from organic production?

(c)      Does this also apply where an advertising retailer promotes products of a manufacturer which (may) come from different factories and are examined by different control bodies?

(d)      If Questions 2(a) to (c) cannot be clearly answered by yes or no: according to which criteria, if any, is a differentiation to be made between 2(a) and 2(b)?’

 The questions referred

17      Under Article 99 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court may at any time, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide to rule by reasoned order where the answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or where it admits of no reasonable doubt.

18      That provision should be applied in the present case, since the answer to the questions referred by the referring court admits of no reasonable doubt.

19      By its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, that court asks, in essence, whether Article 32(1)(a) of Regulation 2018/848, read in conjunction with Article 3(52) and (53) and Article 30(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to indicate the code number of the control authority or control body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject does not extend to advertising leaflets which are physically separated from the organic products that they promote.

20      Article 32(1)(a) of Regulation 2018/848, in its French-language version, lays down the obligation to indicate on the ‘étiquette’ of any product bearing terms referred to in Article 30(1) of that regulation, such as ‘bio’ or ‘eco’, the code number of the control authority or control body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject.

21      As is clear from Article 3(52) of that regulation, the term ‘étiquette’, in its French-language version (‘Etikett’ and ‘label’, respectively, in the German- and English-language versions), constitutes, in the same way as any packaging, document, notice, ring or collar, a medium or form of ‘labelling’. The latter concept includes any words, particulars, trade marks, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol relating to the product that are placed on those media. The concept of ‘labelling’ is therefore defined more broadly than the concept of ‘label’ and is not to be confused with it.

22      However, in the German- and English-language versions, Article 32(1)(a) of Regulation 2018/848 uses, respectively, the words ‘Kennzeichnung’ and ‘labelling’, both of which correspond to the concept of ‘labelling’ within the meaning of Article 3(52) of that regulation and not to the concept of ‘label’.

23      Moreover, the concept of ‘advertising’ is defined in Article 3(53) of Regulation 2018/848, in its French-language version, as ‘toute présentation de produits à l’intention du public, par tout moyen autre que l’étiquetage, qui vise ou est de nature à influencer et façonner les attitudes, les opinions et les comportements afin de promouvoir directement ou indirectement la vente’. In particular, it follows from the expression ‘par tout moyen autre que l’étiquetage’ that the concept of ‘advertising’, within the meaning of that provision, and the concept of ‘labelling’, within the meaning of Article 3(52) of that regulation, are mutually exclusive.

24      However, in its German- and English-language versions, Article 3(53) of Regulation 2018/848 excludes from the concept of ‘advertising’ only ‘Etikett’ (‘mit anderen Mitteln als einem Etikett’) and ‘label’ (‘by any means other than a label’), respectively. As noted in paragraph 21 of this order, those terms correspond to that of ‘étiquette’, which is one of the media or forms of ‘labelling’ listed in point 52 of that article. In the light of the wording of Article 3(53) of that regulation in those two language versions, the referring court notes that an advertising leaflet such as that at issue in the main proceedings could be regarded as being a form of labelling, in so far as, even if it does not ‘accompany’ an organic product, it ‘refers’ to such a product.

25      The Court has repeatedly held that the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for its interpretation or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Provisions of EU law must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all EU languages. Where there is divergence between the various language versions of an EU legislative text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to its context and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgments of 5 February 2015, M. and Others, C‑627/13 and C‑2/14, EU:C:2015:59, paragraphs 48 and 49, and of 18 September 2019, VIPA, C‑222/18, EU:C:2019:751, paragraph 37).

26      In that regard, it must be observed, in the first place, that in none of the language versions of Regulation 2018/848 is the term ‘advertising’, irrespective of its form, included among the media or forms of labelling listed in Article 3(52) of that regulation, namely ‘any packaging, document, notice, label, ring or collar’. Accordingly, the wording of that provision does not allow ‘advertising’ to be classified as a form of ‘labelling’, nor does it allow those two concepts to be treated in the same way.

27      In the second place, the simultaneous use of the terms ‘labelling’ and ‘advertising’ in many provisions of Regulation 2018/848, in particular in Article 1, Article 30(1) and (2) and Article 33(1), indicates that that regulation draws an absolute distinction between those two concepts, without the former being regarded as encompassing the latter.

28      It follows that ‘advertising’ cannot therefore constitute a form of ‘labelling’, within the meaning of Article 3(52) of that regulation, as is particularly clear from the French-language version of Article 3(53) of that regulation, which defines it as ‘tout moyen autre que l’étiquetage’.

29      In the third place, as the referring court points out, the requirement laid down in Article 32(3) of Regulation 2018/848 that the code number of the control authority or control body, referred to in Article 32(1)(a) of that article, be marked in a conspicuous place in such a way as to be easily visible and clearly legible and indelible necessarily refers to the ‘labelling’ of the product itself, within the meaning of Article 3(52) of that regulation, and thus excludes advertising that is physically separated from that product, such as the advertising leaflets at issue in the main proceedings.

30      In the fourth place, contrary to VSW’s claims, Article 30(1) of Regulation 2018/848 is not capable of extending the concept of ‘labelling’ beyond the definition set out in Article 3(52) thereof. Article 30(1) merely clarifies the concept of ‘product bearing terms referring to organic production’, whether in labelling, advertising or commercial documents. The reference to Article 30(1) made in Article 32(1) of that regulation cannot therefore have the effect of extending the obligation to indicate the code number of the control authority or control body to all advertising promoting a product described with terms referring to organic production.

31      In those circumstances, the expression ‘refers to that product’ in Article 3(52) of Regulation 2018/848 cannot be interpreted as including ‘advertising’ within the scope of the concept of ‘labelling’ or as allowing obligations specific to labelling to be extended to advertising.

32      That interpretation is supported by the objectives of Regulation 2018/848. According to recitals 6, 9, 15, 17 and 73 thereof, that regulation aims at ensuring fair competition in the internal market in organic products and at maintaining consumer confidence in products described as organic. To that end, it lays down clear rules protecting the interests of operators and consumers, in particular through provisions on labelling, so that operators can enjoy conditions of fair competition and consumers are able to make informed choices (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2024, Herbaria Kräuterparadies II, C‑240/23, EU:C:2024:852, paragraphs 71 and 72).

33      In the present case, as the Commission has pointed out, the indication on the label of organic products of the code number of the control authority or control body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject is intended to ensure the traceability of the controls to which those products are subject under Regulation 2018/848, in accordance with the objective, identified in the preceding paragraph of this order, of strengthening consumer confidence in products labelled as organic.

34      However, in order to guarantee the traceability of those controls, it appears sufficient to indicate that code number either on the label of organic products or on the packaging, document, notice, ring or collar, as media or forms of labelling for the purposes of Article 3(52) of that regulation, without it being necessary also to indicate it in advertising which is physically separated from such products.

35      Furthermore, as Globus and the Commission have noted, the obligation to indicate that code number in all advertising would give rise to significant practical difficulties where several operators may deliver the organic product to the advertiser. In a case such as that of the advertising leaflets at issue in the main proceedings, the identity of the operator carrying out the last production or preparation operation and, consequently, the identity of the control authority or control body referred to in Article 32(1)(a) of Regulation 2018/848 to which that operator is subject are not, in principle, known at the time when those leaflets are prepared.

36      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 32(1)(a) of Regulation 2018/848, read together with Article 3(52) and (53) and Article 30(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to indicate the code number of the control authority or control body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject does not extend to advertising leaflets which are physically separated from the organic products that they promote.

 Costs

37      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 32(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, read together with Article 3(52) and (53) and Article 30(1) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to indicate the code number of the control authority or control body to which the operator that carried out the last production or preparation operation is subject does not extend to advertising leaflets which are physically separated from the organic products that they promote.

[Signatures]

---

*      Language of the case: German.