The EU’s planned requirement for prior certification of environmental claims and eco-labels under the Green Claims Directive has dominated discussions about the future of environmental advertising for weeks. The third trialogue has been postponed – not least due to massive criticism from legal associations such as the German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) and trade associations.
On June 20, 2025, the Commission announced completely out of the blue that it intended to withdraw the Green Claims Directive in its entirety. This was met with fierce criticism, as the trilogue negotiations were nearing completion. In the meantime, the Commission played down this supposed withdrawal. However, it is currently completely unclear how this directive will proceed.
It almost went unnoticed in February of this year when the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) issued a ruling which impacts on German companies advertising abroad and highlights a previously little-known regulation called the CPC Regulation. According to this regulation, which has been confirmed in a specific case by the BGH, the German Environment Agency, as the competent authority, may, at the request of an authority of another EU Member State, issue prohibition orders regarding environmental advertising claims made in that Member State. This is unusual because unlike in some other EU Member States, there is no authority in Germany responsible for addressing competition violations; instead, this is traditionally the responsibility of competitors as well as consumer and environmental associations.
Background to the decision – what happened?
Advertising with the terms “environmentally friendly” and “climate-friendly”
The facts of the case can be quickly summarised: The company concerned, based in Germany, operates long-distance bus routes in Germany and Belgium. It advertised its long-distance bus journeys on its Belgian website with the statements “milieuvriendelijk” (environmentally friendly) and “klimaatvriendelijk” (climate-friendly) and described the long-distance bus as the “most environmentally friendly means of transport” (in the original: “De plus, voyager en bus longue distance est le mode de transport le plus respectueux de l’environnement”). During the booking process on the German website, the company also offered CO2 compensation payments as an additional service for bus travel, without specifying the emissions value on which this was based.
Action taken by the Belgian authority ADEI
The Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie (General Directorate for Economic Inspection, ADEI) considered the terms “environmentally friendly”, “climate-friendly” and “most environmentally friendly means of transport” to be misleading and the offer of a CO2 compensation payment without specifying the relevant emission value to be misleadingly incomplete. The ADEI, which is the competent authority in Belgium for consumer protection, including monitoring compliance with information and transparency requirements, considered this to be a violation of Belgian consumer protection regulations, which transpose the provisions of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC (UCPD) specifically Article 6(1)(b) and Article 7(1) and (4)(a), into national law.
Legal basis: CPC Regulation
As the advertising company is based in Germany, the ADEI decided to pursue its objections under the CPC Regulation, the “Regulation on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws” (EU No. 2017/2394). It therefore first turned to the Federal Office of Justice, which was responsible at the time, and requested action against the German company and the environmental claims in question. The German Environment Agency (which subsequently became responsible) prohibited the long-distance bus company from advertising long-distance bus journeys with the statements “environmentally friendly” and/or “climate-friendly” and from claiming that long-distance buses were the “most environmentally friendly means of transport”. In addition, the German Environment Agency obliged the company to indicate the emission value on which the CO2 compensation payment offered was based during the booking process.
The company lodged an appeal against this decision by the German Environment Agency with the competent regional court. The Dessau-Roßlau Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The Federal Court of Justice has now ruled on the appeal against the dismissal, which was allowed by the regional court.
What does the Federal Court of Justice say?
In its ruling of 20 February 2025 (I ZB 26/24), the Federal Court of Justice confirmed the legality of the German Environment Agency’s decision to prohibit the company from using the advertising in question and dismissed the appeal as unfounded. The Federal Court of Justice provided a detailed and comprehensive explanation of its decision in a 36-page ruling. It deals precisely with the legality of the actions taken by the Belgian and German authorities under the CPC Regulation. The most important findings from the Federal Court of Justice’s decision are as follows:
The German Environment Agency is the competent authority
First, the Federal Court of Justice confirms that the German Environment Agency is the competent authority for the application of the provisions of the CPC Regulation. This follows from the CPC Regulation in conjunction with the German EU Consumer Protection Implementation Act.
Enforcement request is sufficient for action to be taken
The Federal Court of Justice further clarifies that the powers of the requesting and requested authorities derive directly from the CPC Regulation and that no further requirements need to be met. The only prerequisite for the requested authority to act, here the German Environment Agency, is an enforcement request from the authority of another EU Member State, in this case the ADEI, that meets the requirements of the CPC Regulation. However, a “basic decision” that satisfies the domestic requirements of the law of the respective Member State is not necessary.
Powers of the requested authority under the CPC Regulation
In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, the German Environment Agency’s actions also satisfied the requirements of the CPC Regulation in terms of content; in particular, the measures taken were in accordance with the powers conferred by the Regulation.
According to Article 12(1) sentence 1 of the CPC Regulation, “a requested authority shall take all necessary and proportionate enforcement measures to bring about the cessation or prohibition of the intra-Union infringement by exercising the powers forest out in Article 9 and any additional powers granted to it under national law.” The powers under Article 9 include investigative and enforcement powers. According to Article 12(1), second sentence, the requested authority shall “determine the appropriate enforcement measures needed to bring about the cessation or prohibition of the intra-Union infringement and shall take them without delay and not later than 6 months after receiving the reques ...”.
Misleading consumers
When deciding on the necessary enforcement measures, the “infringement within the Union” must be examined, meaning an infringement of Union law protecting consumer interests (Article 3(1) and (2) of the CPC Regulation). This includes an infringement of the provisions of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, as implemented in the respective legal systems of the Member States, which is assumed here.
The Federal Court of Justice found that the Regional Court reviewing the decision of the German Environment Agency had not erred in law in finding an infringement of the Belgian provisions implementing the EU law prohibitions on misleading advertising pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) and Article 7(1) and (4)(a) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive:
The claims “environmentally friendly” (“milieuvriendelijk”) and “climate-friendly” (“klimaatvriendelijk”) are misleading because their vague meaning could be interpreted differently by the target group, Belgian consumers, and therefore do not meet the strict requirements for clarity in environmental advertising.
The statement that the long-distance bus is the “”most environmentally friendly means of transport” was also not sufficiently explained and was therefore misleading.
Regarding the CO2 compensation payment offered by the company, there was a misleading omission because the information essential for the consumer’s decision, namely the emission value on which the compensation payment was based, had been omitted.
One point of particular interest was that due to the harmonised concept of the average consumer, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the Regional Court was initially entitled to consider the views of the average German consumer and then determine that the views of the average consumer in another Member State did not differ significantly from those in Germany.
The Federal Court of Justice subsequently explained in detail that the measure ordered by the German Environment Agency – the injunction – was also free of discretionary errors, necessary and appropriate, and therefore lawful.
What does the decision mean in practice?
The decision is particularly relevant in practice because it highlights the up until now rarely used possibilities offered by the CPC Regulation, which allows German authorities to take measures against companies based in Germany to put an end to infringements of consumer protection standards under EU law committed in other EU countries. This is particularly significant in Germany because it is usually competitors or associations that pursue violations of consumer protection standards. The EU Consumer Protection Enforcement Act regulates which authority is specifically responsible for issuing orders in individual cases. Depending on which European consumer protection standard has been violated, this may be the German Environment Agency, the German Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), the German Network Agency, the German Aviation Authority or the German Railway Authority.
It is also important to note that German courts are responsible for reviewing decisions issued by German authorities (and thus violations of consumer protection standards applicable in other EU countries).
This could become even more relevant concerning environmental advertising claims in the future, as stricter rules will apply with the Directive Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (EmpCo Directive), which must be implemented by Member States by March 2026. Violations of the strict requirements for environmental claims and labels that will then apply could therefore be prosecuted across borders by authorities from other EU countries under the CPC Regulation. Companies based in Germany should take this into account when planning EU-wide advertising campaigns and carefully review their advertising claims in advance.
