Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
5 November 2026 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Directive 2014/31/EU – Non-automatic weighing instruments – Obligations of manufacturers – Second subparagraph of Article 6(5) – Point 1.1(iv) to (vi) of Annex III to that directive – Inscription of information regarding the maximum capacity, the minimum capacity and the verification scale interval in a visible, legible and indelible manner – Display exclusively in digital form and alternating when the instrument is in use – Prohibition on placing on the market – Recommendation R 76-1 2006 of the International Organisation of Legal Metrology (OIML) – Technical standards and regulations – Harmonised standard EN 45501:2015 )
In Case C‑237/25,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany), made by decision of 16 October 2024, received at the Court on 27 March 2025, in the proceedings
Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
v
Mettler-Toledo GmbH,
interested party:
Vertreterin des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
composed of F. Biltgen, President of the Chamber, S. Gervasoni, A. Kumin, I. Ziemele and M. Bošnjak (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: A. Biondi,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, by H.‑J. Müggenborg, Rechtsanwalt,
– Mettler-Toledo GmbH, by D. Büge and C. Ziegler, Rechtsanwälte,
– the German Government, by J. Möller and P.‑L. Krüger, acting as Agents,
– the European Commission, by T.S. Bohr and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive 2014/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of non-automatic weighing instruments (OJ 2014 L 96, p. 107), read in conjunction with point 1.1(iv) to (vi) of Annex III to that directive.
2 The request has been made in proceedings between the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany) and Mettler-Toledo GmbH concerning the prohibition imposed on Mettler-Toledo against placing certain weighing instruments on the market in that Land.
Legal context
International law
3 The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 86; ‘the TBT Agreement’) constitutes Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1). The members of the WTO, including all EU Member States and the European Union itself, are party to the TBT Agreement.
4 The sixth recital of that agreement states:
‘… no country should be prevented from taking measures necessary … for the prevention of deceptive practices, at the levels it considers appropriate, subject to the requirement that they are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade, and are otherwise in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement’.
5 Article 2.4 of that agreement provides:
‘Where technical regulations are required and relevant international standards exist or their completion is imminent, Members shall use them, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their technical regulations except when such international standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued, for instance because of fundamental climatic or geographical factors or fundamental technological problems.’
6 Annex 1 to that agreement sets out the following definitions:
‘…
1. Technical regulation
Document which lays down product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions, with which compliance is mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method.
…
2. Standard
Document approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, with which compliance is not mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method.
…
4. International body or system
Body or system whose membership is open to the relevant bodies of at least all Members.
…’
European Union law
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012
7 Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2012 L 316, p. 12), provides:
‘For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “standard” means a technical specification, adopted by a recognised standardisation body, for repeated or continuous application, with which compliance is not compulsory, and which is one of the following:
…
(c) “harmonised standard” means a European standard adopted on the basis of a request made by the [European] Commission for the application of Union harmonisation legislation;
…’
8 Article 10(6) of that regulation provides:
‘Where a harmonised standard satisfies the requirements which it aims to cover and which are set out in the corresponding Union harmonisation legislation, the Commission shall publish a reference of such harmonised standard without delay in the Official Journal of the European Union or by other means in accordance with the conditions laid down in the corresponding act of Union harmonisation legislation.’
Directive 2014/31
9 Recitals 5 and 17 of Directive 2014/31 state:
‘(5) Member States should have the responsibility of protecting the public against incorrect results of weighing operations by means of non-automatic weighing instruments when used for certain categories of applications.
…
(17) This Directive should be limited to the expression of the essential requirements as regards metrology and performance in relation to non-automatic weighing instruments. In order to facilitate conformity assessment with those essential requirements as regards metrology and performance, it is necessary to provide for a presumption of conformity for non-automatic weighing instruments which are in conformity with harmonised standards that are adopted in accordance with [Regulation No 1025/2012] for the purpose of expressing detailed technical specifications of those requirements, in particular as to the metrological, design and construction characteristics.’
10 Under Article 1(2) of that directive:
‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following categories of use of non-automatic weighing instruments shall be distinguished:
(a) determination of mass for commercial transactions;
(b) determination of mass for the calculation of a toll, tariff, tax, bonus, penalty, remuneration, indemnity or similar type of payment;
(c) determination of mass for the application of laws or regulations or for an expert opinion given in court proceedings;
(d) determination of mass in the practice of medicine for weighing patients for the purposes of monitoring, diagnosis and medical treatment;
(e) determination of mass for making up medicines on prescription in a pharmacy and determination of mass in analyses carried out in medical and pharmaceutical laboratories;
(f) determination of price on the basis of mass for the purposes of direct sales to the public and the making-up of prepackages;
(g) all applications other than those listed in points (a) to (f).’
11 Article 2 of that directive is worded as follows:
‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:
…
(11) “harmonised standard” means harmonised standard as defined in point (c) of point 1 of Article 2 of Regulation [No 1025/2012];
…’
12 The second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of that directive provides:
‘For the instruments intended to be used for the applications listed in points (a) to (f) of Article 1(2), manufacturers shall affix the inscriptions provided for in point 1 of Annex III.’
13 Under Article 12 of Directive 2014/31:
‘Instruments which are in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union shall be presumed to be in conformity with the essential requirements set out in Annex I covered by those standards or parts thereof.’
14 Annex I to that directive, entitled ‘Essential requirements’, states:
‘The terminology used is that of the International Organisation of Legal Metrology [(OIML)].
…
8.5 The instruments shall have no characteristics likely to facilitate fraudulent use, whereas possibilities for unintentional misuse shall be minimal. Components that may not be dismantled or adjusted by the user shall be secured against such actions.
…’
15 Annex III to that directive, entitled ‘Inscriptions’, provides, in point 1 thereof, entitled ‘Instruments intended to be used for the applications listed in points (a) to (f) of Article 1(2)’:
‘1.1. Those instruments shall bear visibly, legibly and indelibly the following inscriptions:
…
(iv) maximum capacity, in the form Max …;
(v) minimum capacity, in the form Min …;
(vi) verification scale interval, in the form e = …;
…
1.2. Those instruments shall have adequate facilities for the affixing of the conformity marking and inscriptions. These shall be such that it shall be impossible to remove the conformity marking and inscriptions without damaging them, and that the conformity marking and inscriptions shall be visible when the instrument is in its regular operating position.
…
1.4. The inscriptions Max, Min, e, and d, shall also be shown near the display of the result if they are not already located there.
…’
Standard EN 45501:2015
16 The references of standard EN 45501:2015, entitled ‘Metrological aspects of non-automatic weighing instruments’, appear in the Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive [2014/31] (OJ 2016 C 14, p. 100).
17 Point 7.1.2 of that standard states:
‘…
Acceptable solutions:
(a) Marking of Max, Min, e … and d if d ≠ e:
These values are permanently and simultaneously shown on the display of the weighing result as long as the instrument is switched on.
They may be automatically scrolled (displayed alternating one after each other) in one display. Automatically scrolling (but not on manual command) is considered as “permanently”.
…’
German law
18 Paragraph 13(1) of the Verordnung über das Inverkehrbringen und die Bereitstellung von Messgeräten auf dem Markt sowie über ihre Verwendung und Eichung (Mess- und Eichverordnung – MessEV) (Regulation on the placing and making available of measuring instruments on the market and on their use and calibration; ‘MessEV’) of 11 December 2014 (BGBl. 2014 I, p. 2010, 2011), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the MessEV’), provides:
‘Markings and inscriptions must be affixed visibly, legibly and indelibly on the measuring instrument or other measuring device; they must be clear, irremovable, unambiguous and non-transferable. Latin letters and Arabic numbers must be used for markings and inscriptions. Other letters or numbers may be used in addition.’
19 Paragraph 15(3) of the MessEV provides:
‘Measuring instruments in the form of non-automatic weighing instruments are to be marked with the following inscriptions …:
…
(2) the maximum capacity, whereby the letters ‘Max’ are to be placed in front of the mass value,
(3) the minimum capacity, whereby the letters ‘Min’ are to be placed in front of the mass value,
(4) the value in units of mass for the classification and verification of a weighing instrument (verification scale interval), whereby the sequence ‘e =’ is to be placed in front of the value,
…
The maximum capacity, the minimum capacity, the verification scale interval and the actual scale interval shall be shown near the display of the result. Each evaluation device which is connected or can be connected to one or more load receptors shall bear the relevant inscriptions relating to those load receptors.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
20 Mettler-Toledo manufactures a model of a non-automatic weighing instrument that displays the information relating to the maximum capacity, the minimum capacity and the verification scale interval exclusively in digital form, via the indicating device of the instrument concerned. When that instrument is switched on, that information is displayed, in alternation, at the same time as the result of the weighing operation. That instrument is equipped with a calibration seal, an adjustment lock and a software logging system, which prevent any changes being made to that information.
21 By an administrative decision of 29 April 2020, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia prohibited Mettler-Toledo from placing on the market in that Land, with effect from 1 June 2020, non-automatic weighing instruments displaying the information relating to the maximum capacity, the minimum capacity and the verification scale interval exclusively in digital form.
22 By a judgment of 21 April 2021, the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Administrative Court, Cologne, Germany) dismissed the action brought by Mettler-Toledo against that administrative decision. By a judgment of 8 September 2022, the Oberverwaltungsgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Administrative Court for the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany) varied that judgment and annulled that administrative decision on the ground that neither EU law nor German law prohibited an exclusively digital display of that information.
23 That assessment is challenged by the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia in an appeal on a point of law (Revision) before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany), which is the referring court.
24 The referring court considers that the administrative decision referred to in paragraph 21 above complies with Paragraph 13(1) and Paragraph 15(3) of the MessEV, which is intended to transpose Directive 2014/31 into German law.
25 According to that court, the wording and objective of that directive, in accordance with which those provisions must be interpreted, preclude an exclusively digital display of the information relating to the maximum capacity, the minimum capacity and the verification scale interval.
26 The referring court observes that such a display is, however, expressly accepted in Recommendation R 76-1 2006 of the OIML, and in point 7.1.2 of standard EN 45501:2015, which is a harmonised standard the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
27 That court notes, however, first, that that recommendation comes within the scope of the TBT Agreement, Article 2.4 of which does not prohibit WTO members from adopting technical regulations the content of which differs from that of international standards adopted by international standardisation bodies. On the contrary, that agreement makes clear already in its recitals that the WTO members are not to be prevented from taking measures considered to be necessary provided that those measures are not used for arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between different member countries. In any event, the agreement establishing the WTO and the annexes to that agreement do not, in principle, have a binding effect for the purpose of interpreting EU law.
28 The referring court states, second, that, under Article 12 of Directive 2014/31, the presumption of conformity with that directive of products complying with standard EN 45501:2015 does not concern the inscriptions referred to in Annex III to that directive. In any event, the hierarchy of norms of EU law precludes a harmonised standard from derogating from the provisions of an act of secondary legislation.
29 In that regard, in the light of the possible divergence between Directive 2014/31 and the content of standard EN 45501:2015, the referring court asks whether the information relating to the maximum capacity, the minimum capacity and the verification scale interval must necessarily be physically affixed to a non-automatic weighing instrument.
30 In those circumstances the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Does a non-automatic weighing instrument meet the requirements of the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive [2014/31], read in conjunction with points 1.1.(iv), 1.1.(v) and 1.1.(vi) of Annex III thereto, if the indications of maximum capacity, minimum capacity and verification scale interval are not physically affixed to the instrument, but are displayed only digitally and in alternation when the weighing instrument is in operation?’
Consideration of the question referred
31 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive 2014/31, read in conjunction with point 1.1(iv) to (vi) of Annex III to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the information relating to the maximum capacity, the minimum capacity and the verification scale interval may be displayed by a non-automatic weighing instrument exclusively in digital form and in alternation when that instrument is in operation, without being physically affixed to that instrument.
32 According to settled case-law, the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, having regard not only to the wording of that provision but also to the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see judgments of 18 January 1984, Ekro, 327/82, EU:C:1984:11, paragraph 11, and of 18 December 2025, Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab, Afdeling Schackenborgvænge, C‑417/23, EU:C:2025:1017, paragraph 76).
33 Under the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive 2014/31, as regards instruments which are intended to be used for the applications listed in points (a) to (f) of Article 1(2) thereof, ‘manufacturers shall affix the inscriptions provided for in point 1 of Annex III’.
34 In accordance with point 1.1(iv) to (vi) of Annex III to that directive, those instruments are to bear visibly, legibly and indelibly the inscriptions relating to the maximum capacity (‘Max’), the minimum capacity (‘Min’) and the verification scale interval (‘e’).
35 As regards the wording of point 1.1 of Annex III to Directive 2014/31, it should be stated that the language versions of that point 1.1 diverge.
36 Although the terms used in the German- (‘Aufschriften’), Greek- (‘επισημάνσεις’), Latvian- (‘uzraksti’), Polish- (‘napisy’) and Slovenian-language (‘napisi’) versions of that provision tend to refer to writing, printing or engraving on a physical medium, those used in the Spanish- (‘inscripciones’), English- (‘inscriptions’), French- (‘inscriptions’), Italian- (‘iscrizioni’) and Romanian-language (‘inscripții’) versions of that provision do not clearly rule out a digital display.
37 Similarly, although an exclusively digital display that alternates does not correspond to the requirement of permanence which is clear from the terms ‘dauerhaft’ and ‘trwały’ used, respectively, in the German- and Polish-language versions of that provision, it may be regarded as indelible, as required by the English- (‘indelibly’), French- (‘indélebile’), Italian- (‘indelebile’), Latvian- (‘neizdzēšami’), Romanian- (‘indelebil’) and Slovenian-language (‘neizbrisljivo’) versions, in so far as the information displayed when the instrument is switched on cannot be erased by mechanical action.
38 In that regard, it must be recalled that the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard (judgments of 27 March 1990, Cricket St Thomas, C‑372/88, EU:C:1990:140, paragraph 18, and of 26 March 2026, Pumpyanskiy and Others v Council, C‑696/23 P, C‑704/23 P, C‑711/23 P, C‑35/24 P and C‑111/24 P, EU:C:2026:245, paragraph 100).
39 Furthermore, it appears that point 1.1 of Annex III to Directive 2014/31 must be read in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of that directive, which requires that ‘manufacturers shall affix’ the inscriptions in question, which seems to suggest the physical inscription, on their part, of the values in question on the instrument concerned and not repeated automatic scrolling between those values on a display after that instrument has been switched on.
40 As regards the context in which the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive 2014/31 and point 1.1. of Annex III to that directive occur, it should be noted, first, that the other provisions of Annex III, referred to by Mettler-Toledo in its written observations, do not allow it to be determined whether the exclusively digital display of the information in question is allowed.
41 According to point 1.2 of Annex III to Directive 2014/31, the instruments referred to in that point are to have adequate facilities for the affixing of the conformity marking and inscriptions, which are to be such that it is to be impossible to remove the conformity marking and inscriptions without damaging them, and that the conformity marking and inscriptions are to be visible when the instrument is in its regular operating position. Even assuming that a digital screen constitutes an ‘adequate facility for the affixing’ of the information concerned and that a digital display is ‘such that it shall be impossible to remove [it] without damaging [it]’, within the meaning of point 1.2, the fact remains that those inscriptions must be affixed by the manufacturers.
42 In addition, the requirement laid down in point 1.2 that inscriptions must be ‘visible when the instrument is in its regular operating position’ refers only to the positioning and orientation of the instrument in question, and does not make it possible to determine whether such visibility must also be ensured when that instrument is neither switched on nor in operation.
43 Second, the referring court observes that the technical specifications contained in Recommendation R 76-1 2006 of the OIML expressly permit an exclusively digital display of the information relating to the maximum capacity, the minimum capacity and the verification scale interval.
44 In that regard, it is true that Annex I to Directive 2014/31 states that the terminology used is that of the OIML, but that statement concerns only Annex I, and not Annex III, to that directive, and refers solely to the terminology of the OIML and not to the technical specifications adopted by it.
45 Third, standard EN 45501:2015, entitled ‘Metrological aspects of non-automatic weighing instruments’, constitutes a ‘harmonised standard’ within the meaning of Article 2(11) of Directive 2014/31, namely a European standard adopted on the basis of a request made by the Commission for the application of EU harmonisation legislation. The references of standard EN 45501:2015 were published in the Official Journal of the European Union, in accordance with Article 10(6) of Regulation No 1025/2012.
46 In that regard, it should be recalled that a harmonised standard, adopted on the basis of a directive and the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, forms part of EU law owing to its legal effects (judgment of 5 March 2024, Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission and Others, C‑588/21 P, EU:C:2024:201, paragraph 70 and the case-law cited).
47 In the present case, point 7.1.2 of standard EN 45501:2015 permits an exclusively digital display of the information relating to the maximum capacity, the minimum capacity and the verification scale interval, provided that those items of information are, at the very least, automatically displayed one after each other when the instrument concerned is switched on.
48 It is clear from Article 12 of Directive 2014/31 that instruments which are in conformity with harmonised standards the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union are to be presumed to be in conformity with the essential requirements set out in Annex I to that directive ‘covered’ by those standards. It follows that the requirements set out in Annex III to that directive are not concerned by the presumption of conformity laid down in Article 12 of the directive.
49 As the referring court observes, that finding is not called into question by recital 17 of Directive 2014/31, which does not expressly refer to Annex I thereto.
50 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, as the preamble to an EU act has no binding legal value, the recitals of such an act cannot be relied upon to derogate from the provisions of the act itself or to interpret those provisions in a manner contrary to their wording (judgment of 22 January 2026, Secab, C‑423/23, EU:C:2026:32, paragraph 77 and the case-law cited).
51 Accordingly, it cannot be inferred from the conformity of a non-automatic weighing instrument with standard EN 45501:2015 that that instrument is in conformity with the requirements set out in point 1.1 of Annex III to Directive 2014/31.
52 As regards the objectives pursued by Directive 2014/31, recital 5 thereof states that Member States should have the responsibility of protecting the public against incorrect results of weighing operations.
53 As the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia has submitted, in essence, in its written observations, the surveillance authorities may have to carry out checks to that end, including in situations where the instrument concerned is not supplied with electricity, for example when it is stored or transported. Such checks are facilitated by inscriptions that are written, printed or engraved on a physical medium.
54 The interpretation of point 1.1(iv) to (vi) of Annex III to Directive 2014/31 as meaning that the information relating to the maximum capacity, the minimum capacity and the verification scale interval may not be displayed exclusively in digital form and in alternation when a non-automatic weighing instrument is in operation is therefore consistent with the objective referred to in paragraph 52 above.
55 In that regard, it must be noted that the metrological characteristics of a non-automatic weighing instrument, since they are intrinsic to it, must be known and able to be verified also outside the regular operating conditions of that instrument, unlike the weighing results, the exclusively digital display of which Directive 2014/31 does not prohibit.
56 In the light of all the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive 2014/31, read in conjunction with point 1.1(iv) to (vi) of Annex III to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the information relating to the maximum capacity, the minimum capacity and the verification scale interval may not be displayed by a non-automatic weighing instrument exclusively in digital form and in alternation when that instrument is in operation, without being physically affixed to that instrument.
Costs
57 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:
The second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive 2014/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of non-automatic weighing instruments, read in conjunction with point 1.1(iv) to (vi) of Annex III to that directive,
must be interpreted as meaning that the information relating to the maximum capacity, the minimum capacity and the verification scale interval may not be displayed by a non-automatic weighing instrument exclusively in digital form and in alternation when that instrument is in operation, without being physically affixed to that instrument.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: German.