Legal issue: lower courts diverged as to whether an information shield should be considered as an advertisement and, consequently, whether its installation requires a license.

Alternative approaches: some courts believed that an installation bearing information on the range of goods and services as well as their prices with seller’s logo on it do not constitute an “advertisement” in the meaning of the law. Other courts, however, held the opposite view, since such shields are capable of drawing the attention of an unlimited number of potential customers and may emphasise the merits of certain goods and services.

Ratio decidendi: the Presidium held that information shields do not legally constitute an advertisement, if the information thereon ought to be brought to the consumers’ attention by virtue of a federal law. Also, in such circumstances the manner in which such shields are made is of no significance.

Practical consequences: the Judgment says that prior court decisions in analogous cases if inconsistent with this interpretation may be reversed in the procedure and within the limits envisaged by Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code.