The right to information about the qualities and characteristics of products and services offered is a fundamental principle of consumer protection. To enforce this right, the information must be clear, detailed and easy to understand, reflecting the consumer's legitimate expectation of the safety and quality of the goods. In this context, the use of one language rather than another plays a crucial role in enabling consumers to make informed choices and reduce the risks arising from improper product use.
Indeed, it is undeniable that consumers face difficulties due to deficiencies in the language requirements of labels and that information is more accurate when provided in their native language or otherwise in a language easily understandable. These shortcomings can have serious consequences, sometimes potentially jeopardizing consumers' health or safety, as most consumers lack multilingual experiences. In any case, ambiguous or incomprehensible information, even without severe consequences, can still deter consumers from purchasing the product or service.
In Italy, the use of language for consumer information is regulated by Article 9 of Legislative Decree 206/2005 (the so-called “Italian Consumer Code”, which is, inter alia, the national transposition of Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety). Article 9 states that “All the information intended for consumers and users shall be given in Italian, as a minimum requirement”. This provision must be coordinated with Article 6 of the Italian Consumer Code, which dictates the minimum and mandatory information that must appear on the labels of products intended for consumers and marketed on the national territory (e.g. the materials used and the production methods where these are significant for the quality or characteristics of the product). Article 6 empowers consumers to act rationally in the market by providing them with the necessary information to orientate economic choices consciously. An example of non-mandatory information under Article 6 of the Italian Consumer Code is the statement “all rights reserved”.
Reading these provisions together suggests that Article 9 of the Italian Consumer Code, in imposing the obligation to translate all information, makes no distinction between mandatory and supplementary information. It follows that any label information, even non-essential elements, needs to be rendered at least in Italian.
However, such an obligation to use the Italian language, if not balanced by overriding requirements and interests of equal or higher rank, raises concerns regarding its compatibility with Articles 28, 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”). On closer examination, the Italian language restriction imposes additional labeling costs on foreign manufacturers and importers, a burden not faced by their Italian counterparts. The result is a restriction on the free movement of goods in the EU market, potentially favoring domestic products to the detriment of imported products, in breach of Article 36 TFEU. The increased costs of production and distribution could make imported goods less competitive or discourage businesses from entering the Italian market altogether.
The inconsistency of Article 9 of the Italian Consumer Code to EU law is particularly evident especially when it requires the translation of information that is not relevant for the protection of consumers. This includes all information beyond the mandatory information outlined in Article 6 of the Italian Consumer Code. In such cases, there is no overriding interest that justifies restricting the free movement of goods under Article 28 TFEU.
Indeed, an analysis of the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the subject indicates that national measures imposing language requirements are rarely justified, given the particularly restrictive effects of such rules on intra-EU trade. In fact, according to the constant jurisprudential orientation of the EU Court of Justice, any measure that may hinder, directly or indirectly, actual or potential imports between Member States falls under the prohibition of Article 36 TFEU. Therefore, if an economic operator is deterred from introducing or marketing its products in the Member State concerned, it constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of goods.
Building on established case law, Article 34 TFEU promotes non-discrimination and mutual recognition of products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States. This ensures free access to national markets for Union products. Since requirements concerning the presentation of goods, including language, are directly tied to the product itself, they are not considered as selling arrangements but as measures having an equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU.
The issue of the language of non-mandatory information was further clarified by the judgment of 3 June 1999, C-33/97, Colim v. Bigg's Continent Noord (so-called "Colim case"), which set out the criteria within which the Member State can impose language restrictions, i.e. when such national measures: (a) apply without distinction to all national and imported products; (b) are proportionate to the objective of consumer protection that they pursue; (c) are restricted to information deemed mandatory by the Member State; and (d) relate to information that cannot be conveyed by means other than translation.
As for the principle of proportionality, the judgment states that “Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) [now Article 36 TFEU] prohibits obstacles to the free movement of goods resulting from rules that lay down requirements to be met by such goods (such as requirements as to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labelling or packaging), even if those rules apply without distinction to all national and imported products, unless their application can be justified by a public-interest objective taking precedence over the free movement of goods”. It is certain that “information addressed to the purchaser or end-user which can be communicated only by words is of no practical use unless it is given in a language which he can understand”. However it must be considered that “a national measure imposing such language requirements must, in any event, be proportionate to the aim pursued”.
On mandatory information, “decisions as to the availability, in the language of the consumer, of information which, in the view of that State, need not be made mandatory must be left to the trader responsible for marketing the product, who may have it translated if he wishes”.
A similar conclusion is also reached by the Advocate General in the Goerres case, which states that “such an obligation concerns only the compulsory particulars required by the directive and not the additional particulars which may in an appropriate case be affixed to the product. The latter particulars may lawfully be worded in the product's original language”.
Therefore, the EU Court of Justice emphasizes that even language restrictions must be proportionate to the consumer protection objective and limited to the information made mandatory by the Member State. These two requirements are indeed intertwined and can almost be considered consequential. How could the obligation to translate information that the economic operator could have easily omitted be considered a proportionate measure for consumer protection?
Thus, there is a manifest contradiction in the lawmaker’s decision to impose a language burden on information that the law itself considers the consumer can do without. In other words, if it is deemed unnecessary for the consumer to receive a particular piece of information, what is the difference, in terms of consumer protection, between receiving it in a potentially incomprehensible language and not receiving it at all?
It is common ground that an obstacle to the free movement of goods can only be justified by reasons of general interest stated in Article 36 TFEU, or by overriding reasons. In either case, the national measure must be appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it. Therefore, both requirements must be taken into account and balanced – ensuring adequate information and sufficient protection of consumers, while simultaneously promoting the free movement of goods.
Next steps
In light of what has been said so far, to strike a balance between protecting free movement and safeguarding the health and safety of consumers, it is essential to adopt a balanced approach. This considers the authority of the Member States, the relevant TFEU rules and the EU Court of Justice rulings while upholding consumers’ right to full information about the products and services.
Therefore, if EU law rejects the imposition by Member States of language burdens for additional product labeling information, then Article 9 of the Consumer Code will have to be disapplied. This is because it conflicts with EU principles and EU case law. So dictates, moreover, the principle of the primacy of EU law, according to which where a conflict between a rule of EU law and a rule of national law arises, EU law prevails.
The disapplication of Article 9 of the Consumer Code would have practical consequences. Companies involved in the sale of consumer goods could save on the additional costs of translating additional information. Eliminating this obligation would reduce the economic and logistical burdens on importers by allowing them to adopt multilingual labels in which only essential information is translated into Italian.
In conclusion, until further clarification, businesses must still fully translate even non-mandatory information - under penalty of seizures and the administrative penalty provided for in Article 12 of the Italian Consumer Code.
