• Rechtssachenbeschreibung
    • Nationale Kennung: Federal Court of Justice, Judgment I ZR 85/18
    • Mitgliedstaat: Deutschland
    • Gebräuchliche Bezeichnung:“Kaffeekapseln” (coffee capsules)
    • Art des Beschlusses: Beschluss des Obersten Gerichts
    • Beschlussdatum: 28/03/2019
    • Gericht: Bundesgerichtshof
    • Betreff:
    • Kläger:
    • Beklagter:
    • Schlagworte: seller, purchaser, selling price, unit price, package, price comparison, price information, specified price, omission, misleading omission, informed decision, information obligation, decision to purchase, clearly legible, burden of proof, consumer goods
  • Artikel der Richtlinie
    Price Indication Directive, Article 1 Price Indication Directive, Article 1 Price Indication Directive, Article 3 Price Indication Directive, Article 3, 4.
  • Leitsatz


    Indication of the filling weight of pre-packaged foods.

  • Sachverhalt

    The plaintiff filed an injunction against the defendant complaining about the way the defendant, an electronics market, was offering coffee capsules of different brands to be used for the same system, namely the Nespresso system. Indicated were the particular kind of the capsules, the amount of ten pieces per package and the price per package, but not the unit or base price for the coffee powder contained in the capsules. On the packages, only the total filling weight of all capsules contained in one package was indicated.

  • Rechtsfrage

    The issue to be decided was whether article 2 paragraph 1 sentence. 1 PangV applied, which goes back to article 3 paragraph 1 sentence. 1 Directive 98/6/EC and obliges the defendant to indicate also the unit or base price, which is the price per 100 gram or kilogram of the coffee powder contained in the capsules. Furthermore, the issue was whether the infringement of article 2 paragraph 1 sentence. 1 PangV is appreciable in the sense of article 3(a) UWG.

  • Entscheidung

    Interpreting article 2 paragraph 1 sentence 1 PangV in light of Directive 98/6/EC, the Court first finds that this provision is market-regulating in the sense of article 3(a) UWG so that the plaintiff, a qualified entity, is entitled to base its claim on this provision. The Court here, in particular, points to the purpose stipulated in article 1 Directive 98/6/EC to improve consumer information and facilitate price comparisons.

    Addressing the difficult issue of the applicability of article 2 paragraph 1 sentence 1 PangV to food offered in pre-packaged form, for which not only weight but also the number of pieces contained in the sales unit may play a role from the perspective of the consumer, the Court finds that article 2 paragraph 1 sentence 1 PangV applies to the coffee capsules at issue so that – independent of whether it is generally assumed that coffee capsules are offered based on the unit price of the contained coffee powder – there is a legal obligation to indicate the unit price. The court in particular emphasises that the unit price must be indicated, if the filling weight of a sales unit of the offered item must be made and that this obligation cannot be omitted by offering the goods not based on filling weight, but e.g. based on quantity of packages, even though legal provisions stipulate that filling weight of packages must be indicated.

    On the issue of the appreciability of the infringement in the sense of article 3(a) UWG the Court holds that appreciability can be assumed if the consumer needs the information in order to make an informed decision and if withholding that information leads the consumer to a different decision which is, in particular, the case, if – like in this case – the information is considered essential by EU law. If the seller argues otherwise, he has the secondary burden of proof.

    Volltext: Volltext

  • Verbundene Rechtssachen

    Keine Ergebnisse verfügbar

  • Rechtsliteratur

    Keine Ergebnisse verfügbar

  • Ergebnis