The climate malaise has invited many new regulatory measures in recent years to fight against greenwashing, with advertising bans being particularly noteworthy. In September 2024, The Hague passed a municipal law banning fossil fuel-related advertising in public spaces like billboards and bus shelters (Art. 2:97(7) City Ordinance). The ban outlaws ‘advertising for products and services related to fossil fuels, including air travel, plane tickets, grey energy contracts, gas contracts, cruise holidays or cars with fossil fuel or hybrid engines’ (Art. 1:1(x)). The ANVR – the Dutch trade association for travel agencies – and the travel company TUI filed summary proceedings against the ban. On 25 April 2025, the District Court of The Hague upheld the ban. It thoroughly assessed the measure’s compatibility with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), EU free movements and fundamental rights (freedom of expression and the freedom to conduct a business).
This ruling is the
first time a court reviewed and upheld a municipal ban of this nature,
making it a noteworthy legal development for EU (consumer) lawyers in light of
the burgeoning regulatory initiatives. Besides the Hague ban, Amsterdam
has similarly banned fossil advertising since 2021, while France
has introduced a national ban in 2022. The UN Secretary-General, António
Guterres, has even called for a global ban on all fossil fuel advertising.
Apart from fossil advertising, several Dutch cities, including Haarlem
as the world’s first, have banned meat advertising, and France
has outlawed advertising for ultra-fast fashion. Building on the Hague
decision, this post summarises the legal arguments in favour of the legality of
similar advertising bans under EU law.
The Court’s Ruling
Compatibility with UCPD (paras 5.11-5.12): According to ANVR and TUI, the UCPD, as a maximum harmonisation instrument, prohibits Dutch law from providing a higher level of protection and thus renders the fossil ads ban incompatible. Referring to the Commission’s UCPD Guidelines, the Hague Court clarified that the UCPD ‘does not cover national rules intended to protect interests which are not of an economic nature’ and thus ‘does not affect the possibility of Member States to set rules regulating commercial practices for reasons of health, safety or environmental protection’. According to the municipality of The Hague, the ban is not intended to protect the economic interests of consumers but aims to prevent the negative effects of climate change and to protect the health of residents and visitors of the city. Therefore, the ban is not contrary to the UCPD.
Compatibility with the free movement of goods (Art. 34 TFEU, paras 5.13-5.15): Following the CJEU’s Keck jurisprudence, national advertising restrictions are only assessed under Art. 34 TFEU, which prohibits discriminatory measures on imported goods. According to the Hague Court, the ban applies indistinctly to Dutch and international market participants, and ANVR and TUI did not demonstrate otherwise. Even if the ban constitutes a restriction under Art. 34, such a restriction can still be justified under Art. 36 TFEU for the protection of health and the environment. The municipality has sufficiently substantiated that the ban is suitable and necessary for achieving said objectives by encouraging residents and visitors to make more sustainable choices and reducing the use of fossil fuels. The measure also remains proportionate, as advertising through other media, such as television and newspapers, is still possible.
Compatibility with the freedom of expression (Art. 10 ECHR and Art. 11 of the Charter, paras 5.16-5.19): Art. 10 ECHR codifies the freedom of expression but allows for restrictions that ‘are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society’. Following the ECtHR case law, the Hague Court referred to the existence of ‘a pressing social need’ to assess whether the ban’s restriction on freedom of speech can be justified. The Court invoked some similar arguments to those under Art. 36 and concluded that the ban complies with Art. 10 ECHR: The advertising ban is relevant for the protection of health and the environment, and advertising for the plaintiffs’ other products or through other media remains possible. In addition, Art. 11 of the Charter does not provide more extensive protection. The municipality also contended that the Charter does not apply as the dispute measure does not concern the implementation of EU law, which the Court agreed. (In a separate section (paras 5.8-5.10), the Court also discussed the freedom of expression under Art. 7 of the Dutch Constitution, but the national provision does not protect ‘commercial advertising’.)
Compatibility with the freedom to conduct a business (Art. 16 of the Charter, paras 5.20-5.21): While the Hague Court stated that the Charter does not apply, for the sake of argument, Art. 16 of the Charter still would not invalidate the advertising ban. The violation of Art. 16 should only be assessed in light of the analysis under Art. 34 TFEU, and a separate assessment is unnecessary.
This analysis should be read in light of the Hague Court’s assessment on the municipality’s competence (paras 5.6-5.7). The Court confirms that the municipality of The Hague is competent to act against climate change and promote public health by setting rules within its boundaries. It is deemed untenable to argue that flying less does not have a direct positive impact on air quality within The Hague. The Court pointed out that reducing flying, ‘in combination with other environmental measures taken by the municipality’, can decrease CO2 emissions. This is not altered by the fact that the contribution of the municipality may be small on a national or global scale. ‘Every little bit helps, and the municipality wants to do its bit’.
The Hague Court also assessed the
compatibility of the ban with the general principles of good
administration (paras 5.22-5.34), including the principles of lex certa,
proportionality, equality and the obligation to state reasons. However, none of
these principles are violated.
Comments
While scholars have presented convincing arguments that bans on advertising for carbon-intensive products do not violate EU law (see Kaupa; Venzke and Ankersmit; Van de Berg and Eckes), the Hague Court’s decision sets a positive precedent for similar action, especially at the local and municipal levels. The fact that the Hague Court did not even feel the need to ask for a preliminary ruling from the EU Court also indicates the ban’s clear legality under the EU legal framework.
Here are some main lessons from this case. From the perspective of EU secondary law, the UCPD does not pose a legal obstacle insofar as the ban is framed as exclusively for health and the environment, and not for consumer protection. The reference to consumer protection, even as a co-objective for a mixed-purpose measure, will invoke the fully harmonised UCPD, which, despite the recent amendment to upscale its relevance for combating greenwashing, does not square with a comprehensive ban. While this construction nonetheless allows national and local authorities to introduce an advertising ban, it is regrettable that the UCPD views consumer protection of economic interest in such a narrow sense. A more enduring solution would simply be to amend the UCPD (either its harmonisation scope or its objectives) or to interpret its objectives in a more long-term, environmentally friendlier way (for example, in conjunction with Art. 11 TFEU).
Moreover, the Hague Court did not discuss the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AMSD), which was previously invoked in another case heard by the Dutch Advertising Code Committee. Art. 9(1)(c)(IV) AMSD prohibits advertisements encouraging ‘behaviour grossly prejudicial to the protection of the environment’. The Dutch Advertising Code Committee rejected the reading that this provision justifies bans on fossil advertising, which was based on an artificial distinction between advertisements and the (environmentally harmful) products being advertised. But it has been argued that the AMSD provision not only allows but also demands bans like that of The Hague. Moreover, the fact that the EU legislature has already undertaken a balancing exercise when enacting secondary law, ie weighing the tension between an advertising ban and free speech, provides more concrete guidance for the judicial assessment.
From the perspective of EU primary law, the Hague Court informed us of a twofold legal strategy. First, regarding provisions like Art. 34 TFEU and Art. 16 of the Charter, a comprehensive and non-discriminatory ban simply invokes no violation. While not discussed by the Hague Court, neither is an advertising ban liable for infringing upon property rights (Art. 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR, Art. 17 of the Charter): a contractual right to use advertising spaces can hardly be qualified as a proprietary interest, and its decrease in economic value hardly amounts to an infringement.
Second, even if a restriction of fundamental rights or freedoms is found, such as the freedom of expression, there are almost always exceptions available for such a restriction to be justified for the legitimate aim of public or general interest. This should include the protection of health and the environment (as well as broadly defined consumer protection), given the urgency of climate change (as we trail behind the Paris Agreement goals) and that the ECtHR has interpreted Art. 8 ECHR as encompassing the protection against climate change.
Next, the justification usually concerns a
three-step assessment of suitability, necessity and proportionality. We can
draw some general lines of argument from the Hague decision. (A lot can also be
learnt from the advertising restrictions on alcohol and tobacco.)
- First, an advertising ban is suitable for pursuing the aims of health and environmental protection. In light of the significant carbon impact of private consumption, the IPCC Report has highlighted the urgent need for changes in consumption patterns to achieve climate neutrality. To this end, advertising and other commercial communications play a crucial part in shaping consumer choices and normalising undesirable consumption behaviour. As such, as the Hague Court correctly pointed out, advertising bans can encourage consumers to make more sustainable choices and reduce carbon emissions.
- Second, an advertising ban is also necessary. Here, it is more difficult to generalise the analysis as it usually pertains to the scope and essence of each restricted right or freedom. But the Hague Court helpfully reminded us that the fact that banning fossil advertising within a municipality’s boundaries is insufficient for curbing climate change does not render the measure unsuitable or unnecessary. The necessity of the advertising ban must thus be viewed as part of a broader policy mix in the climate transition.
- Third, regarding proportionality in a strict sense, it is again related to the specific restricted right. This case concerns a ban at a municipal level on advertising in public spaces. Its restrictive scope means that the proportionality test is not hard to fulfil. For bans at the national or EU level, the proportionality test may be more challenging. One approach is through comparison with feasible alternatives. For example, the proposed Green Claims Directive requires ex-ante verification for all explicit environmental claims prior to market access. By comparison, a ban targeting advertising for fossil fuel and other carbon-intensive products should be considered less restrictive and thus proportionate.
Overall, the Hague Court’s decision is a
positive message for the legal battlefield against climate change. It brings
legal clarity and paves the way for further – necessary but insufficient –
action against greenwashing and unsustainable market practices.
