Ministere public v Jean-Jacques Paris. [1989] EUECJ R-204/88 (13 December 1989)

Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 prohibiting marking eggs with dates other than those provided for in the regulation.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [1989] EUECJ R-204/88
Parties: Defendant: Jean-Jacques Paris; Referring Court: Tribunal de police, Rethel (Ardennes, France)
Jurisdiction: European Union
Judgment Date: 13 December 1989
Procedural Posture: Preliminary Ruling (article 177 Eec) / Judgment on Reference From National Court
Outcome: Validity of Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 upheld; prohibition on marking eggs with dates other than those provided for is lawful.
Legal Topics: Validity of EU Regulations, Marketing Standards for Eggs, Consumer Information Rights, Interpretation of Article 15 Regulation 2772/75

European Union Law Criminal Law Consumer Protection Validity of EU Regulations Marketing Standards for Eggs Consumer Information Rights Interpretation of Article 15 Regulation 2772/75

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2

Parties

Jean-Jacques Paris

Defendant

Tribunal de police, Rethel (Ardennes, France)

Referring Court

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (article 177 Eec) / Judgment on Reference From National Court

Legal Issues

1 Whether Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 is valid in prohibiting the marking of eggs with the date on which they were laid
2 Whether such prohibition infringes consumer rights or Treaty provisions (Article 86, Article 40(3) EEC)

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Validity of Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 upheld; prohibition on marking eggs with dates other than those provided for is lawful.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.