• In the case of Case C-443/98 Unilever Italia v Central Food [2000] ECR I-7535, the judgment of C-194/94 CIA Security v Signalson [1996] was reaffirmed by the European Court of Justice. National laws which do not comply with the procedural rules of EU Directive 83/189 shall be disapplied – this includes both horizontal and vertical disputes.

Facts of Case C-443/98 Unilever Italia v Central Food [2000] ECR I-7535E

  • Member State Italy brought in domestic regulations on food labelling despite there being no Community legislation.
  • The C, Unilever, delivered olive oil to the D, Central Food
  • D refused to accept C’s delivery; C sued for breach of contract
  • D defended their actions be saying that C’s product did not comply with the Italian law, and thus accepting delivery would be unlawful
  • C counter argued saying the national law should not apply as it was in breach of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 which laid down the procedure for provisions of information regarding technical standards and regulations
  • Specifically, the C argued the national law was in breach of Article 9 of the Directive, a standstill clause

Issues in Case C-443/98 Unilever Italia v Central Food [2000] ECR I-7535

  • Was the national law in breach of the Directive?
  • And if so, would this call for the national law to become applicable – especially in a horizontal dispute, as in the present case?

Held by the European Court of Justice

  • Ruled in favour of the C, Unilever. The national law was inapplicable as it breached Article 9 of the Directive, and could be invoked in proceedings between individuals either for the breach of a standstill clause, or for the lack of notification.

Findings of the Court

What the CIA Security case concerned, and why that judgment is valid for the present case

  • “CIA Security related to a technical regulation which had not been notified in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 83/189. This explains why the operative part of that judgment confines itself to finding that technical regulations which have not been notified in accordance with that article are inapplicable.” [38]
  • “The Court also examined the obligations deriving from Article 9 of Directive 83/189. The Court’s reasoning shows that, having regard to the objective of Directive 83/189 and to the wording of Article 9 thereof, those obligations must be treated in the same way as those deriving from Article 8 of the same directive.” [39]

The European court, in applying the judgment of CIA Security to the present case, found “that the inapplicability of a technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 83/189 can be invoked in proceedings between individuals for the reasons set out in paragraphs 40 to 43 of this judgment. The same applies to non-compliance with the obligations laid down by Article 9 of the same directive, and there is no reason, in that connection, to treat disputes between individuals relating to unfair competition, as in the CIA Security case, differently from disputes between individuals concerning contractual rights and obligations, as in the main proceedings.” [49]

The role of the national courts presented with similar situations was also made clear

  • “a national court is required, in civil proceedings between individuals concerning contractual rights and obligations, to refuse to apply a national technical regulation which was adopted during a period of postponement of adoption prescribed in Article 9 of Directive 83/189.” [52]

Study Law in the UK

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.