Listen to the article:

Case: Lidl Italia Srl v AGCM (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato). Referring court: Consiglio di Stato (Italy). CELEX: 62025CJ0301. The preliminary reference concerned the relationship between the prohibition of misleading commercial practices (Directive 2005/29) and the prohibition of unfair food-information practices (Article 7 of Regulation 1169/2011).

Operative holding: Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC must be interpreted as not precluding that, in the field of foodstuffs, a trader’s conduct constituting a misleading commercial practice within Article 6(1) of that Directive may be subject to penalties under the national legislation transposing that Directive, where that conduct also falls within the prohibition in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and national implementing legislation.
Diagram: UCPD and FIC as complementary regimes after C-301/25
Fig. 1. Article 3(4) UCPD requires two conditions for FIC exclusivity; the Court confirmed that Article 7 regulates specific aspects, but found no conflict — the regimes are complementary.

1. Facts: pasta, Italian identity cues, and “EU and non-EU” wheat

By decision of 20 December 2019, AGCM imposed an administrative fine of EUR 1 million on Lidl Italia for marketing certain ranges of durum wheat semolina pasta in packaging that highlighted the Italian origin / Italian identity of the product and indicated milling in Italy, while the wheat used for the semolina was of “EU and non-EU” origin and the pasta was produced in Italy from mixtures containing a significant percentage of wheat not grown in Italy.

AGCM considered that the Italian-origin cues suggested or were likely to suggest that the indication also applied to the raw materials. Information that the product was obtained from foreign-origin raw material should — according to the authority — be equally highlighted next to the Italian-origin indications (at least on the same side of the packaging). The fine was imposed under the Consumer Code (UCPD transposition), not under Legislative Decree No 231/2017 (sanctions for Article 7 FIC infringements; range EUR 3,000–24,000).

Primary source: facts and operative answer taken from the CJEU judgment of 30 April 2026 in Case C-301/25 (CELEX 62025CJ0301). No invented enforcement anecdotes from other Member States.

2. Preliminary questions and the Court’s reformulation

The Consiglio di Stato referred three questions on the autonomy / overlap of Article 7 FIC with Article 6 et seq. of Directive 2005/29 and on the adequacy of the Legislative Decree 231/2017 penalty relative to Article 13 UCPD. The Court examined the first and second questions together, reformulating them as a question on Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29: whether that provision precludes UCPD penalties where the same conduct also falls within Article 7 FIC.

Flowchart: from AGCM decision through the two-condition test to the C-301/25 operative answer
Fig. 2. Path: AGCM decision → preliminary questions → condition (i) met, condition (ii) not met → operative answer: Article 3(4) does not preclude UCPD penalties. Third question — inadmissible.

3. The Article 3(4) test: two conditions, not one

Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29 provides that, in the event of a conflict between the provisions of that Directive and other EU rules regulating specific aspects of unfair commercial practices, the latter shall prevail and apply to those specific aspects.

According to the Court, specific aspects fall exclusively within Regulation 1169/2011 only when both conditions are satisfied:

  • (i) in the context of food information, Article 7(1) of Regulation 1169/2011 must regulate those specific aspects of unfair commercial practices; and
  • (ii) there must be a conflict between that provision and the provisions of Directive 2005/29.
ElementUCPD (2005/29)FIC (1169/2011)
Key provisionArticle 6(1) — misleading commercial practicesArticle 7 — fair information practices
Protection focusConsumers’ economic interests; transactional decisionAccurate, clear food information (inter alia composition, origin, production method)
Practice scopeBroad B2C commercial-practice definitionFood information / presentation, including packaging (Article 7(4))
Relationship after C-301/25Complementary — shared objective of protecting against misleading information; no conflict within Article 3(4)

4. Why there is no conflict

“Conflict” under Article 3(4) means more than a disparity or simple difference: a divergence that cannot be overcome by a unifying formula allowing both situations to coexist without distortion. Such a conflict exists only where other EU rules impose on traders — leaving them no margin for discretion — obligations incompatible with those in Directive 2005/29 (case-law including Wind Tre / Vodafone Italia).

The Court held that:

  • Article 7 FIC regulates specific aspects of unfair commercial practices (condition (i) met) — the Regulation complements the general UCPD principles with food-information rules;
  • both systems pursue a high level of protection against misleading information, even though the constituent elements of the prohibited practices are not identical;
  • the UCPD centres on economic interests and the transactional decision; Article 7 FIC protects consumer interests (including non-economic ones) in a health and food-safety context;
  • simultaneous application of both regimes does not create an irreconcilable divergence — the regimes are complementary.
Effectiveness limit for Article 7: to guarantee both the effectiveness of Article 7 FIC relative to Directive 2005/29 and consistent application of both instruments, a food-information practice that complies with all requirements stemming from Article 7 may not, in principle, be prohibited under Directive 2005/29.

5. Third question: inadmissible

The question whether the penalty in Article 3 of Legislative Decree No 231/2017 meets the requirement of effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties under Article 13 of Directive 2005/29 was held inadmissible. Lidl Italia was penalised solely under the Consumer Code; the referring court did not show that it might have to rule on the Legislative Decree 231/2017 penalty (which applies to Article 7 FIC infringements), nor did it explain the link to Article 13 UCPD.

6. Operational checklist for FBOs

  1. Separate “country of production / brand identity” cues from raw-material origin — especially where the label emphasises national identity of the finished food.
  2. Assess the overall presentation (front of pack + side panel), not only the literal truth of a single statement (Article 6(1) UCPD covers overall presentation).
  3. Check compliance with Article 7 FIC (accuracy, clarity, non-misleading character as to composition / origin / production method).
  4. Do not assume that coverage by Article 7 FIC automatically excludes UCPD enforcement — after C-301/25 a conflict is required, and the Court found none here.
  5. If the practice meets all Article 7 requirements — document that as a shield against a UCPD prohibition (judgment, paragraph 43).

Related reading

In the labelling / misleading-cues cluster (different holding from C-301/25): graphics and origin suggestion (Teekanne line) and the Polish twin on nutrition-information repeat on FSMP labels (Art. 6(2) Reg. 2016/128).

Glossary

UCPD
Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices (CELEX 32005L0029).
FIC
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (CELEX 32011R1169).
Article 3(4) UCPD
Conflict rule: in case of conflict, other EU rules regulating specific aspects of unfair commercial practices prevail.
Conflict
An irreconcilable divergence — incompatible obligations with no discretion (not a mere difference in sanctions or procedures).

Conclusion

C-301/25 closes the argument that food labelling falling under Article 7 FIC automatically escapes UCPD penalties. Article 3(4) requires a conflict; the Court treated the regimes as complementary. At the same time it drew a limit: full compliance with Article 7 FIC in principle protects against a prohibition under Directive 2005/29. The preference between national sanction regimes (231/2017 vs Consumer Code) stayed outside the operative answer — as inadmissible.

Educational material, not legal advice. Based on CJEU judgment C-301/25 (CELEX 62025CJ0301), Regulation 1169/2011 Article 7, and Directive 2005/29 Articles 3(4) and 6(1). Qualification of a specific label depends on overall presentation and national enforcement law.

Primary sources

  1. CJEU judgment of 30 April 2026, C-301/25, Lidl Italia — CELEX 62025CJ0301.
  2. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Article 7 (fair information practices); CELEX 32011R1169.
  3. Directive 2005/29/EC — Articles 3(4) and 6(1); CELEX 32005L0029.