Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2015:4996
    • Member State: Netherlands
    • Common Name:Robos vs. Inno+
    • Decision type: Court decision in appeal
    • Decision date: 01/12/2015
    • Court: Court of appeal 's-Hertogenbosch
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Robos Limburg B.V.
    • Defendant: Inno+ B.V.
    • Keywords: burden of proof, consumer, misleading advertising, misleading statements
  • Directive Articles
    Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 5, 1., (a)
  • Headnote
    The burden of proof in case of a 'misleading statements claim' rests with the party that has decided on the statements regardless of their role as defendant or plaintiff.
  • Facts
    Both Inno+ and Robos manufacture air wash-systems that regulate the emission of particulates and ammonia. Intensive livestock farms are obliged under Dutch environmental law to install a certified air wash-system. Inno+ has made statements that air wash-systems of Robos are producing laughing gas and several other statements. Furthermore, Inno+ has made statements that their air wash-systems are certified and biologic whereas Robos contests those statements.
  • Legal issue
    The court ruled that in case a 'misleading statements claim' is made against a defendant and the defendant is also the party that has decided on these statements, the burden of proof lies with that party.

    The court ruled that, in that particular situation, a defendant must make a plausible case for the correctness or completeness of the statements instead of a normal situation whereby the burden of proof - as a general rule - lies with the plaintiff.
  • Decision

    On which party does the burden of proof rest in case a 'misleading statements claim' is made against the party that has decided on the statements?


    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The court finds that it has not become sufficiently plausible in this case that the statements by Inno+, were incorrect and unlawful. The court upholds the judgment of the judge in preliminary relief proceedings and convicts Robos to pay the costs of the proceedings.