Environmental Law

https://​www.​oecd.​org/​sti/​consumer/​48127506.​pdf.

O.J. L 149/22 (2005).

See particularly Micklitz (2009).

O.J. L 250/17 (1984).

O.J. L 144/19 (1997).

O.J. L 166/51 (1998).

O.J. L 271/16 (2002).

O.J. L 364/1 (2004).

O.J. L 210 (1985).

O.J. L 171 (1999).

Art. 3(4).

See Regulation (CE) No. 178/2002 of 28 gennaio 2002, O.J. L 31/1 (2002); Regulation (CE) No. 1924/2006 of 20 December 2006, Art. 2, lett. (a) on nutrition and health claims made on food, O.J. L 404/9 (2006); Legisl. Decree No. 189 of 27 January 1992 (and its amendments), on labeling, presentations and food advertising.

https://​www.​ftc.​gov/​policy/​federal-register-notices/​guides-use-environmental-marketing-claims-green-guides.

https://​www.​law.​cornell.​edu/​wex/​products_​liability.

https://​www.​epa.​gov/​sites/​production/​files/​2015-10/​documents/​vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.​pdf.

Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91, O.J. L 189/1 (2007). Other examples of specific legislation are Directive 2010/30/EU of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, O.J. L 153/1 (2010); Regulation (EC) No. 1222/2009 of 25th November 2009 on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters, O.J. L 342/46 (2009).

We report the relevant part of the Guidance on the application/implementation of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices (SEC(2009)1666), Commission Staff Working Document, page 37: “The expressions ‘environmental claims’ or ‘green claims’ refer to the practice of suggesting or otherwise creating the impression (in the context of a commercial communication, marketing or advertising) that a product or a service, is environmentally friendly (i.e. it has a positive impact on the environment) or is less damaging to the environment than competing goods or services. This may be due to, for example, its composition, the way it has been manufactured or produced, the way it can be disposed off and the reduction in energy or pollution which can be expected from its use. When such claims are not true or cannot be verified this practice can be described as ‘green washing’. Consumers may weigh environmental considerations when purchasing products. Increasingly, in planning their advertising and marketing campaigns traders are taking these factors into account and environmental claims have become a powerful marketing tool. However, in order for environmental claims to be informative for consumers and to be effective in promoting goods and services with lower environmental impacts, it is imperative that they are clear, truthful, accurate and not misleading. They must also not emphasize one environmental issue and hide any trade-offs or negative impacts on the environment. The use of truthful environmental claims is also important in order to protect traders who make genuine claims from unfair competition from those traders who make unfounded environmental claims. There is no EU legislation specifically harmonizing environmental marketing. Environmental claims are partly covered by specific community legislation regulating the environmental performance of a category of products and prohibiting the misleading use of the claim, logo or label used in reference to this specific legislation. These laws provide for specific rules which take precedence over the broader provisions of the Directive as explained in Section 1.9 above. Examples of such legislation are given in Section 2.5.2 below. Outside those aspects covered by specific EU legislation, the general provisions of the Directive are to be used when assessing environmental claims and establishing whether a claim is misleading either in its content or in the way it is presented to consumers. This was highlighted when, on 4 December 2008, the Environment Council adopted conclusions on the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan. Under point 18 of the conclusions, the Council ‘INVITES the Member States to fully implement the Directive on unfair commercial practices with regard to environmental claims; INVITES the Commission to include environmental claims in any future guidelines on the Directive on unfair commercial practices’.”

Italian Competition and Market Authority, www.​agcm.​it.

www.​agcm.​it.

https://​www.​ftc.​gov/​news-events/​press-releases/​2016/​03/​ftc-charges-volkswagen-deceived-consumers-its-clean-diesel.

http://​www.​nytimes.​com/​2016/​06/​28/​business/​volkswagen-settlement-diesel-scandal.​html.

Riehm (2016). The violation of the freedom of choice through a fraud determines a damage to property. See BVerfG 2 BvR 1980/07 (2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats)–Beschluss vom 10. März 2009 (BGH/LG Kiel).

“Nach ständiger Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs kann ein Nachteil im Sinne des § 266Abs. 1 StGB auch dann vorliegen, wenn Vermögenswerte konkret gefährdet sind, so dass nach wirtschaftlicher Betrachtungsweise bereits eine Verschlechterung der gegenwärtigen Vermögenslage eingetreten ist (vgl. BGHSt 44, 376, 384; 48, 354, 357; 51, 100, 113 f.; "schadensgleiche Vermögensgefährdung" oder "Gefährdungsschaden"). Zum Betrugstatbestand des § 263 StGB wurde zuerst nach der gebotenen wirtschaftlichen Betrachtungsweise ein Vermögensschaden nicht nur im tatsächlichen Verlust eines Vermögenswertes, sondern schon in der konkreten Gefährdung vermögenswerter Positionen gesehen (vgl. BVerfG NJW 1998, 2589, 2590; BGHSt 21, 112, 113; 23, 300, 303). Der Gefährdungsschaden wird dem endgültigen Schaden in § 266 Abs. 1 StGB wie in § 263 StGB grundsätzlich gleichgestellt (vgl. BGHSt 51, 100, 120).”

But see Cadiet (1997).

Punitive damages are recognized in some US jurisdictions; see http://​www.​mcandl.​com/​puni_​chart.​html.

In the UK, punitive damages have been recognized in the case Attorney-General vs. Blake, 1 A.C. 268 (2001) e Kuddus (AP) vs. Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary, in U.K.H.L., 2001, 29.

In Germany, they are not recognized. See BGH 4.6.1992, in NJW, 1992, 3096 and Schäfer (2002), p. 419 ff.

In France, jurisprudence does in principle not recognize punitive damages. See Cass. 8.5.1964, in JCP, 1965, II, 14140. See also Chabas (1999); Roujou de Boubee I., Essai sur la notion de réparation, Paris, 1974, in part. p. 267.

It is the same in Spain. See T.S. 5750/1986, in La Ley, 1986, V, p. 5620 and Casals M, Notas sobre la indemnización del daños moral en las acciones por difamación de la LO 1/1982, in Estudios en homenaje al Código civil, Madrid, 1989, p. 1231.

The Italian Supreme Court has sent the question of recognition of punitive damage to the United Sessions of the Supreme Court stating that “The current opinion, affirming that the recognition of foreign judgments awarding punitive damages is contrary to public order, is doubtful taking in to account the progressive evolution accomplished by the Court in the interpretation of the principle of public order, originally intended as an expression exclusively of the national legal system”: see Court of Cassation, sent. No. 9978/2016.

In Italy, it is contained in Article 1370 of the Civil Code. It is a rule of the interpretation of the contract providing that where a promise, agreement, or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one against the interests of the party who drafted the wording. This principle is recognized also in common law systems. See Garner (2009).