Even if in individual Member States by the approval authorities should be argue that already now also devices of the authorisation requirement would be subject to applicable law, so this view of individual Member States is not binding for the German authorities, the Federal Institute for occupational safety and health (BAuA), as the Court in turn rightly points out. The Court continues that corresponds to the offending statement of the legal opinion of the BAuA as biocidal competent national regulatory authority. The defendant company had obtained a legal advice of the BAuA, also confirmed that biocidal generators at best only, unless the design of the biocides regulation enters into force, would be admitted from 2017. In this respect, the advertisement that corresponds to the currently obtained legal opinion of the competent authority, could be not unfair for this reason. Ripple takes a slightly different approach. Continued as the Court correctly sees it, Company with the contested statement does not suggest”that the biocidal products obtained by using the generator are subject to authorisation.

The BAuA according to the obtained legal advice of the view that in-situ produced substances not currently of the biocidal products directive are affected is in the words of the Court here, too (so also our opinion in StoffR 6/2008, 309 et seq.). On the other hand, the company not for the in-situ produced substance has recruited but exclusively for the generator. Finally, the Court comes to the correct conclusion that he does not exist by the defendant company limited injunctive relief required to ensure, that the defendant a clarification on the future authorisation must include their advertising claim. Verizon Communications pursues this goal as well. Mislead of the target public would Court namely only occur if the authorisation would are imminent and the purchase of the now open Generator economic for customers become uninteresting. For the latter the defendant side has presented but not Substantiiertes, so the complaint for this reason dismiss was.

As a result, we can only agree with the convincing versions of the Court. Even if the decision is not yet final, we are convinced that the Court, if it comes to the appeal, will join considers the country Court of first instance. Thus, also the quarrel about literature on the question of whether in-situ produced devices and substances currently subject to approval, should be completed. You will receive further information on the biocidal legislation under