Background
Bizerba manufactures a weighing instrument integrated into third-party checkout systems used in retail trade. The instrument records weighing results and transmits them via a tamper-proof interface to a cash register computer, which displays them on a screen through a Bizerba-licensed software module. The instrument itself neither prints nor visibly displays the results.
In 2019, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia inspected a checkout system and found a metrology marking indicating conformity since 2016, although Bizerba’s instrument had not been connected to the display terminal until 2017. The Land concluded that only that connection created a complete weighing instrument, and in January 2020 it prohibited Bizerba from using devices bearing CE or supplementary metrology markings affixed before completion of the conformity assessment. The Administrative Court Cologne annulled that decision in April 2021, and the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia dismissed the Land’s appeal in September 2022.
On further appeal on a point of law, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) referred a question under Article 267 TFEU: whether a measuring instrument constitutes a “non-automatic weighing instrument” under Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/31/EU if the weighing result is not printed or visibly displayed, but merely recorded. The Land also sought reopening of the oral procedure under Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing disagreement with the Advocate General’s Opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The Court first refused to reopen the oral part of the procedure. It held that disagreement with the Advocate General’s Opinion cannot in itself justify reopening, since the Statute and Rules of Procedure make no provision for observations in response to that Opinion and the Court is not bound by it. The Court also found it had sufficient information to rule.
On the substance, the Court reformulated the question and held, first, that the definitions in Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/31 do not require a display or printing device. A measuring instrument that records weighing results “serves to determine the mass of a body by using the action of gravity” and therefore falls within the definition of a “weighing instrument”; the mass is “determined” once recorded, irrespective of how users learn of it. Where operator intervention is required during weighing, the instrument is a “non-automatic weighing instrument” within the directive’s scope.
Second, the Court held that such an instrument is capable of meeting the essential requirements in Annex I, with one exception. While several provisions of Annex I presuppose that users can perceive the weighing results via an indicating device, nothing requires that device to be integrated into the instrument itself; the annex’s preliminary remark treats an instrument that “includes” or “is connected” to indicating devices equivalently. However, point 14 of Annex I imposes additional requirements on instruments for direct sales to the public with a maximum capacity not greater than 100 kg: those instruments must show essential information directly to users, which means a display or printing device must be integrated into the instrument. The Court further held that harmonised standard EN 45501:2015 departs from point 14 on this point, so conformity with the standard cannot give rise to a presumption of conformity with those additional requirements, and the standard cannot alter the interpretation of point 14.
Key Takeaways
- A weighing instrument that only records results, without printing or displaying them, still qualifies as a “non-automatic weighing instrument” under Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/31/EU.
- Such an instrument can satisfy the Annex I essential requirements through an external indicating device — except the point 14 additional requirements for direct-sales instruments up to 100 kg, which demand an integrated display or printing device.
- Harmonised standard EN 45501:2015 cannot trigger a presumption of conformity where it departs from the directive’s text, nor can it override the interpretation of point 14 of Annex I.
- Disagreement with an Advocate General’s Opinion is not, by itself, grounds to reopen the oral procedure under Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure.
Why It Matters
The ruling clarifies the boundary between the definition of a non-automatic weighing instrument and the essential requirements governing its use, giving manufacturers and market-surveillance authorities a uniform EU-wide reading of Directive 2014/31. It confirms that modular checkout systems — where the scale records weight and a separate terminal displays it — fall within the directive, while preserving heightened consumer-protection requirements for direct-sales scales.
The judgment also reinforces the hierarchy between harmonised standards and secondary legislation: a standard forms part of EU law but cannot derogate from the directive it implements, and the presumption of conformity under Article 12 extends only to requirements actually “covered” by the standard. Attorneys advising on product compliance, metrology, or CE marking should note both the substantive distinction and the Court’s procedural guidance on reopening oral proceedings.