|
Foodlaw-Reading
Dr David Jukes, The University of
Reading, UK
Providng access to food law since May 1996 |
|
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
|
Last updated:
18 July, 2023
European Court of Justice -
Cases Relevant to Food Law
This Page contains some links to a number of cases relevant to
a study of EU food law. It is not comprehensive. The main site for the Court of Justice is at: http://europa.eu.int/cj/en/index.htm
Access to cases is from the following two pages:
Cases are listed by reverse order
of Case Reference Number |
T-500/22
- Action brought on 16 August 2022 — Vleuten Insects and New Generation Nutrition v Commission
- Parties:
- Applicants: Vleuten Insects vof (Hoogeloon, Netherlands), New Generation Nutrition BV (Helvoirt, Netherlands)
- Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
- annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 2 June 2022 terminating the procedure for authorising the placing on the market of Alphitobius diaperinus larva as a novel food without updating the Union list of novel foods (1);
- order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
- First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 6(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/2469 (2), insofar the decision was adopted without the procedural requirements and guarantees set out under that provision having been complied with, making the decision illegal.
- Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration and of Article 41 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and more particularly:
- breach of the duty of procedural loyalty and of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations (first part of the second plea);
- breach of applicable procedural requirements and of the duty to provide a valid and legally admissible statement of reasons (second part of the second plea); and
- breach of the principle of proportionality (third part of the second plea).
- Third plea in law, a subsidiary plea to the effect that, if neither the first plea nor the second plea is upheld, the applicants submit a plea of illegality based on Article 277 TFEU against Article 10(6) of Regulation 2015/2283 (3) and Article 6 of Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/2469, alleging that those provisions are void because they are in breach of the principle of legal certainty and of the principle of equal treatment.
References:
- Document reference: C(2022)3478.
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2469 of 20 December 2017 laying down administrative and scientific requirements for applications referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods (OJ 2017 L 351, p. 64).
- Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 (OJ 2015 L 327, p. 1)
C-141/22
- Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz — Austria) — TLL The Longevity Labs GmbH v Optimize Health Solutions mi GmbH, BM
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Novel food - Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 - Sprouted buckwheat flour with a high spermidine content - Germination of buckwheat seeds in a nutrient solution containing spermidine
Operative part of the judgment
Article 3(2)(a)(iv) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that a food, such as sprouted buckwheat flour with a high spermidine content, which was not used for human consumption to a significant degree within the European Union before 15 May 1997, constitutes a ‘novel food’ within the meaning of that provision given that, first, it is obtained from a plant, secondly, it is not apparent that its safety has been confirmed with compositional data and from experience of continued use for at least 25 years in the customary diet of a significant number of people in at least one country of the European Union, and, thirdly and in any event, it is not obtained by propagating practices, within the meaning of that provision.
C-760/21
- Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Food - Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 - Article 2(2)(g) - Concept of ‘food for special medical purposes’ - Other particular nutritional requirements - Dietary management - Modification of the diet - Nutrients - Use under medical supervision - Ingredients not absorbed or metabolised in the alimentary canal - Distinction in relation to medicinal products - Distinction in relation to food supplements
Operative part of the judgment
- Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on food intended for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes, and total diet replacement for weight control and repealing Council Directive 92/52/EEC, Commission Directives 96/8/EC, 1999/21/EC, 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC, Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 41/2009 and (EC) No 953/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of distinguishing between the concepts of ‘medicinal product’ and ‘food for special medical purposes’, which are defined in those provisions respectively, it must be assessed in the light of the nature and characteristics of the product concerned, whether it is food intended to meet particular nutritional requirements or a product intended to prevent or cure human disease, to restore, correct or modify physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to make a medical diagnosis, or where appropriate, presented as such.
- Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation No 609/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that first, the concept of ‘dietary management’ covers requirements caused by a disease, disorder or health condition, the satisfaction of which is indispensable to the patient from a nutritional point of view, secondly, the classification as a ‘food for special medical purposes’ cannot be made subject to the condition that the satisfaction of ‘nutritional needs’ caused by a disease, disorder or health condition secondly, the qualification of ‘food for special medical purposes’ cannot be made conditional on the satisfaction of ‘dietary management’ needs caused by a disease, disorder or health condition, and therefore the effect of the product, necessarily taking place during or following digestion and, thirdly, the concept of ‘modification of the normal diet alone’ includes both situations in which a modification of the diet is impossible or dangerous for the patient and situations in which the patient can only with great difficulty satisfy his or her nutritional requirements with ordinary food.
- Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation No 609/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the application of that regulation, which does not define the concept of ‘nutrient’, reference must be made to the definition of that concept in Article 2(2)(s) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004.
- Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation No 609/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that first, a product must be used under medical supervision if the recommendation and subsequent assessment of a health professional are necessary in the light of the dietary management needs arising from a particular disease, disorder or health condition and the effects of the product on the patient’s dietary management and on the patient, and, secondly, that the requirement that a food for special medical purposes is ‘to be used under medical supervision’ is not a condition for qualification of a product as such.
- Article 2 of Directive 2002/46 and Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation No 609/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the concepts of ‘food supplement’ and ‘food for special medical purposes’, which are defined in those provisions respectively, are mutually exclusive and that it is necessary to determine on a case-by-case basis and according to the characteristics and conditions of use whether a product falls within one or other of those concepts.
C‑688/21
- JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 7 February 2023e
- Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms – Directive 2001/18/EC – Article 3(1) – Point 1 of Annex I B – Scope – Exemptions – Techniques/methods of genetic modification which have conventionally been used and have a long safety record – In vitro random mutagenesis
Judgment
1. This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3(1) of and point 1 of Annex I B to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).
2. The reference has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif Vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2M, CFSV 49, OGM : dangers, Vigilance OGM 33 and Fédération Nature et Progrès, and, on the other hand, the Premier minister (French Prime Minister) and the Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (French Minister for Agriculture and Food) concerning the implementation of a judicial order to adopt measures aimed, in particular, at establishing the list of techniques/methods of mutagenesis, which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record, to be excluded from the scope of the French legislation designed to transpose Directive 2001/18.
See also: Court Press Release.
C-595/21
- Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach — Germany) — LSI — Germany GmbH v Freistaat Bayern
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Provision of food information to consumers - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Article 17 and point 4 of Part A of Annex VI - ‘Name of the food’ - ‘Name of the product’ - Mandatory particulars in food labelling - Component or ingredient used for the partial or whole substitution of the component or ingredient which consumers expect to see normally used or present in a food
Operative part of the judgment
Article 17(1), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, in conjunction with point 4 of Part A of Annex VI to Regulation No 1169/2011,
must be interpreted as meaning that:
the expression ‘name of the product’ in point 4 of Part A of Annex VI does not have a separate meaning that is different from that of the expression ‘name of the food’, as referred to in Article 17(1) of that regulation, with the result that the special labelling requirements provided for in point 4 of Part A of Annex VI to that regulation do not apply to the ‘name protected as intellectual property’, the ‘brand name’ or the ‘fancy name’ as referred to in Article 17(4) of that regulation.
C-418/21
- Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Orthomol pharmazeutische Vertriebs GmbH v Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Food - Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 - Article 2(2)(g) - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 - Food for special medical purposes - Other particular nutritional requirements - Food providing a general benefit for the patient - Distinction in relation to medicinal products
Operative part of the judgment
Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on food intended for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes, and total diet replacement for weight control and repealing Council Directive 92/52/EEC, Commission Directives 96/8/EC, 1999/21/EC, 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC, Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 41/2009 and (EC) No 953/2009 and, in particular, the concept of ‘other medically determined nutrient requirements’, must be interpreted as meaning that a product constitutes a food for special medical purposes if the disease results in increased or specific nutritional requirements which the food is intended to cover, such that it is not sufficient, for the purposes of such a qualification, that the patient derives a general benefit from the intake of that food because the substances that it contains counteract the disorder or alleviate its symptoms.
C-89/21
- Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Romega’ UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food law - Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 - Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs - Article 1 - Annex I - Fresh poultry meat - Checks by the competent national authorities for the presence of the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of that annex - Checks for the presence of other pathogenic microorganisms - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 14(8) - Discretion of the national authorities - Scope
Operative part of the judgment
Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011, read in conjunction with Article 14(8) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of a Member State may regard as unsafe within the meaning of Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 178/2002 the food category consisting in fresh poultry meat in which pathogenic microorganisms other than the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005 have been detected.
C-51/21
- Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus — Estonia) — Aktsiaselts M.V.WOOL v Põllumajandus- ja Toiduamet
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food law - Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 - Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs - Article 3(1) - Obligations of food business operators - Annex I - Point 1.2 of Chapter 1 - Limit values for the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in fish products before and after being placed on the market - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 14(8) - Official controls of the product at the stage at which it is placed on the market - Scope
Operative part of the judgment
The combined provisions of Article 3(1) and point 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/229 of 7 February 2019, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the manufacturer is unable to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the competent authority, that, throughout their shelf-life, foodstuffs will not exceed the limit of 100 colony-forming units/grams (g), as regards the presence of Listeria monocytogenes, the limit requiring the absence of detection of Listeria monocytogenes in 25 g of the food product concerned laid down in that point 1.2 of that Annex I, does not apply to foodstuffs which have been placed on the market throughout their shelf-life.
C-24/21
- Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Pordenone — Italy) — PH v Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia, Direzione centrale risorse agroalimentari, forestali e ittiche — Servizio foreste e corpo forestale della Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Genetically modified foodstuffs and animal feed - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 26a - Potential for Member States to take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms in other products - Conditions under which appropriate - Principle of proportionality - Guidelines for the development of national coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms in conventional and organic crops - Measure adopted by an infra-State entity prohibiting the cultivation of genetically modified maize in its territory.
Operative part of the judgment
1. Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, as amended by Regulation (EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003, read in the light of that regulation and the Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national measure prohibiting, for the purpose of avoiding the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms in other products, the cultivation in the territory of a region of the Member State concerned of genetically modified organisms authorised under Regulation 1829/2003, on condition that that measure enables the objective of ensuring that producers and consumers have a choice between the products derived from genetically modified crops and products derived from organic and conventional crops to be achieved and that, with regard to the particular circumstances of crops in that territory, that measure is appropriate to achieving that objective and proportionate to it;
2. Where a national measure prohibits, in the territory of a region of the Member State concerned, the cultivation of genetically modified organisms authorised under Regulation No 1829/2003, in accordance with Article 26a of Directive 2001/18 as amended by Regulation No 1829/2003, read in the light of that regulation and the Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops, it is not necessary to determine further, separately, whether that measure complies with Articles 34 to 36 TFEU.
Case C-533/20
- Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal v Upfield Hungary Kft.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Provision of food information to consumers — Labelling — Mandatory particulars — List of ingredients — Specific name of those ingredients — Addition of a vitamin to a food — Obligation to indicate the specific name of that vitamin — No obligation to indicate the vitamin formulation used
Operative part of the judgment
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, rCommission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, must be interpreted, having regard specifically to Article 18(2), as meaning that, where a vitamin has been added to a food, the list of the ingredients of that food does not have to include, in addition to the name of that vitamin, the name of the vitamin formulation used.
Case C-388/20
- Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Provision of food information to consumers - Article 9(1)(l) - Nutrition declaration - Second subparagraph of Article 31(3) - Calculation of the energy value and of the amounts of nutrients - Possibility of providing that information for the food after preparation - Conditions - Second subparagraph of Article 33(2) - Expression on a per portion basis or per consumption unit
Operative part of the judgment
The second subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 must be interpreted as applying only to foods for which preparation is necessary and the method of preparation is predetermined.
T-371/20 and T-554/20 - Joined Cases
- Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Pollinis France v Commission
- Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Standing Committee for Plants, Animals, Food and Feed — EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees — Individual positions of the Member States — Refusal to grant access — Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process
Parties
- Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Lepage and T. Bégel, lawyers)
- Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)
Re:
By its application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Pollinis France, seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 4231 final of 19 June 2020 and Commission Decision C(2020) 5120 final of 21 July 2020, by which the European Commission refused to grant the applicant access to certain documents concerning the Guidance Document of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees, adopted by the EFSA on 27 June 2013, originally published on 4 July 2013, then republished on 4 July 2014 and granted it partial access to certain other documents concerning the 2013 guidance document on bees.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1. Annuls the decisions of the European Commission C(2020) 4231 final of 19 June 2020 and C(2020) 5120 final of 21 July 2020, in that they refuse to grant access to the requested documents on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
C-159/20
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
- Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Article 13 — Use of the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Feta’ to designate cheese produced in Denmark and intended for export to third countries — Article 4(3)
- TEU — Principle of sincere cooperation)
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1. Declares that, by failing to prevent or stop the use by Danish dairy producers of the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Feta’ to designate cheese which does not comply with the product specification for that PDO, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs;
2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of the European Commission;
4. Orders the European Commission to bear one fifth of its costs;
5. Orders the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Cyprus each to bear their own costs
Case C-881/19 (Note: when added to this page, no English version of the judgment was available.)
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — Tesco Stores ČR a.s. v Ministerstvo zemědělství
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Approximation of the laws - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII - Provision of food information to consumers - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Directive 2000/36/EC - Point 2(c) of Part A of Annex I - Cocoa and chocolate products - List of ingredients of a food intended for consumers in a Member State
Operative part of the judgment
Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator, when labelling products marketed in the territory of a Member State, is exempt from the obligation to list all the ingredients constituting a compound ingredient, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(h) of that regulation, only if that compound ingredient, which is the subject of a sales name under Part A of Annex I to Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption, is designated in the list of ingredients using that sales name, in the language version of the Member State concerned.
C-815/19
- Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Natumi GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture and fisheries - Organic production and labelling of organic products - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Article 19(2) - Articles 21 and 23 - Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Article 27(1) - Article 28 - Annex IX, point 1.3 - Processing of organic food - Non-organic ingredients of agricultural origin - Lithothamnium calcareum alga - Powder obtained by cleaning, grinding and drying the sediment of that alga - Classification - Use in organic foodstuffs for the purpose of calcium enrichment - Authorisation - Conditions
Operative part of the judgment
Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1584 of 22 October 2018, must be interpreted as precluding the use of a powder obtained from the cleaned, dried and ground sediment of the alga Lithothamnium calcareum, as a non-organic ingredient of agricultural origin, within the meaning of Article 28 of Regulation No 889/2008, as amended by Implementing Regulation 2018/1584, in the processing of organic foodstuffs, such as rice- and soya-based organic drinks, for the purpose of their enrichment with calcium.
Case C-579/19
- Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, Cleveland Meat Company Ltd v Food Standards Agency
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of health - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Article 5(2) - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Article 54(3) - Hygiene rules applicable to food of animal origin - Post-mortem inspection of the carcass and offal - Official veterinarian - Health marking - Refusal - Meat declared unfit for human consumption - Right of appeal against a decision of the official veterinarian - Effective judicial protection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Parties to the main proceedings
- Appellants: The Queen, on the application of: Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, Cleveland Meat Company Ltd
- Defendant: Food Standards Agency
Operative part of the judgment
- Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, and Regulation No 882/2004 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, where an official veterinarian refuses to affix a health mark to a carcass and the owner of that carcass does not concur with that decision, the official veterinarian must bring the matter before a court so that the latter may give a decision on the merits and on the basis of the evidence of experts called by each side whether a carcass fails to comply with food safety requirements, without being able formally to annul decisions of the official veterinarian or order the lifting of the effects of such decisions.
- Article 54 of Regulation No 882/2004, read in conjunction with recital 43 thereof and in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation according to which the decision made by the official veterinarian, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 854/2004, as amended by Regulation No 882/2004, not to affix a health mark to a carcass may be subject to limited judicial review only, in the context of which the court seised may annul that decision on any ground rendering it unlawful, including where that veterinarian has acted for a purpose other than that for which his or her powers have been conferred on him or her, fails to apply the correct legal test or reaches a decision that is irrational or has no sufficient evidential basis.
T-568/19
- Action brought on 16 August 2019 – Micreos Food Safety v Commission
- Applicant: Micreos Food Safety BV (Wageningen, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)
- Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
- annul the decisions of the Director General for Health and Food Safety of 17 June 2019, forming a unity, by which the Commission: a) definitively refrained from the pursuance of the relevant Comitology procedure in relation to the Commission Draft Regulation ‘permitting the use of Listex™ P100 for the reduction of Listeria monocytogenes on Ready-To-Eat products of animal origin’ as a decontaminant under Regulation (EC) 853/2004; b) refused to examine such use of Listex™ P100 as a non-decontaminating processing aid, and; c) prohibited for the first time the further placing on the market of Listex™ P100 being on the market since 2006 for use as a processing aid on animal-derived Ready-To-Eat food; and
- order the defendant to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision as far as it rejected the application of the applicant to get recognition of Listex™ P100 as a decontaminant is taken without prior vote in SCoPAFF contrary to Articles 289 (1) and 291 (2) TFEU and Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 182/2011.
2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is illegal on the ground that it was adopted on the basis of political considerations despite the fact that it is an implementing act.
3. Third plea in law, alleging that the interpretation of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) 853/2004 was wrong.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of reasoning and in any event illegal reasoning by not distinguishing between a decontaminant
and a non-decontaminating processing aid.
5. Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to consult SCoPAFF as far as the applicant requested recognition of Listex™ P100 as a nondecontaminating processing aid.
6. Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 168 (3) TFEU by failing to ensure via Listex™ P100 protection and prevention from Listeria.
7. Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 14(9) of Regulation (EC) 178/2002 and of the fundamental freedom of free circulation of goods.
8. Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of legal expectations of the applicant as since 2006 Listex™ P100 was in the market and in 2016 EFSA declared it safe.
Order - 26 September 2019
The President of the General Court hereby orders: 1. The application for interim measures is dismissed. 2. The costs are reserved.
C-526/19
- Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Entoma SAS v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Novel foods and novel food ingredients - Regulation (EC) No 258/97 - Article 1(2)(e) - Concept of ‘food ingredients isolated from animals’ - Placing on the market - Whole insects intended for human consumption
Operative part of the judgment
Article 1(2)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that foods consisting of whole animals intended to be consumed as such, including whole insects, do not fall within the scope of that regulation.
C‑490/19
- Judgement of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020
- Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs – Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 – Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 – Article 13(1)(d) – Practice liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product – Reproduction of the shape or appearance of a product which has a protected name – Protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Morbier’
Judgement:
- Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that they do not prohibit solely the use by a third party of a registered name.
- Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation No 510/2006 and Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation No 1151/2012 must be interpreted as prohibiting the reproduction of the shape or appearance characterising a product covered by a registered name where that reproduction is liable to lead the consumer to believe that the product in question is covered by that registered name. It is necessary to assess whether such reproduction may mislead the European consumer, who is normally informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account all relevant factors in the case.
See also: Court of Justice Press Release Case 490/19
C‑363/19
- JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 September 2020:
- Reference for a preliminary ruling — Food safety — Nutritional and health claims concerning foodstuffs — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Articles 5 and 6 — Scientific substantiation for claims — Generally accepted scientific evidence — Article 10(1) — Article 28(5) — Transitional arrangements — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market — Directive 2005/29/EC — Article 3(4) — Relationship between the provisions of Directive 2005/29 and other EU rules regulating specific aspects of unfair commercial practices
Operative part of the judgment
1. Article 5(1), Article 6(1) and (2), Article 10(1) and Article 28(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that, under the transitional arrangements provided for in the latter provision, the burden of proof and standard of proof in respect of the health claims referred to in Article 13(1)(a) of that regulation are governed by Regulation No 1924/2006, which requires the food business operator concerned to be able to justify, by means of generally accepted scientific evidence, the claims which it uses. Those claims must be based on objective evidence which has sufficient scientific agreement.
2. In the event of conflict between the provisions of Regulation No 1924/2006, as amended by Regulation No 107/2008, and those of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), the provisions of that regulation take precedence and apply to unfair commercial practices in relation to health claims, within the meaning of that regulation.
C‑336/19
- Judgement of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (1)
- Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of animals at the time of killing – Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 – Article 4(1) – Obligation to stun animals before they are killed – Article 4(4) – Derogation in the context of ritual slaughter – Article 26(2) – Power of Member States to adopt national rules aimed at ensuring more extensive protection of animals in the case of ritual slaughter – Interpretation – National legislation requiring, in the case of ritual slaughter, stunning which is reversible and cannot cause death – Article 13 TFEU – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 10 – Freedom of religion – Freedom to manifest religion – Limitation – Proportionality – Lack of consensus among the Member States of the European Union – Discretion afforded to Member States – Principle of subsidiarity – Validity – Differing treatment of ritual slaughter and the killing of animals during hunting or recreational fishing activities and cultural or sporting events – No discrimination – Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
1. Point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 26(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, read in the light of Article 13 TFEU and Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which requires, in the context of ritual slaughter, a reversible stunning procedure which cannot result in the animal’s death.
2. The examination of the third question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 26(2) of Regulation No 1099/2009.
See also: Court of Justice Press Release Case 336/19
C-663/18
- JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 19 November 2020 (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Free movement of goods – Common organisation of the markets in the flax and hemp sector – Exceptions – Protection of public health – National legislation limiting the industrialisation and marketing of hemp solely to fibre and seeds – Cannabidiol (CBD))
- REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence (Court of Appeal, Aix-en-Provence, France), made by decision of 23 October 2018, received at the Court on 23 October 2018, in the criminal proceedings against
The Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:
Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prohibits the marketing of cannabidiol (CBD) lawfully produced in another Member State when it is extracted from the Cannabis sativa plant in its entirety and not solely from its fibre and seeds, unless that legislation is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective of protecting public health and does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose. Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 must be interpreted as not applying to such legislation.
See also: Court of Justice Press Release Case 633/18
C-569/18
- Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Caseificio Cirigliana Srl, Mail Srl, Sorì Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Salute
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 4(c) and Article 7(1)(e) - Quality schemes applicable to agricultural products and foodstuffs - Fair competition - PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana - Obligation to separate production areas for ‘PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’
Operative part of the judgment
Article 4(c) and Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and the product specification for ‘PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’ must be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which provide that ‘PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’ must be produced in areas exclusively designated for the production of that cheese, including within one set of premises, in which the holding and storage of milk originating from farms that are not subject to the monitoring system for the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’ is prohibited, if those rules are a necessary and proportionate means of safeguarding the quality of that product or ensuring that the specification for that PDO is monitored, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.
C-524/18
- Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public health - Information and consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Implementing Decision 2013/63/EU - Nutritional and health claims made on foods - Article 10(3) - Reference to general, non-specific benefits - Concept of ‘accompanying’ a specific health claim - Obligation to produce scientific evidence - Scope
Operative part of the judgment
1. Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of 15 January 2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement which it lays down that any reference to general, non-specific benefits of the nutrient or food must be accompanied by a specific health claim included in the lists provided for in Articles 13 or 14 of that regulation, is not satisfied where the packaging of a food supplement contains a reference to general, non-specific health benefits of a nutrient or food on the front of the packaging, whereas the specific health claim intended to accompany it appears only on the back of that packaging and there is no clear reference, such as an asterisk, between the two;
2. Article 10(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006 as amended by Regulation No 107/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that references to general, non-specific benefits of a nutrient or food for overall good health or health-related well-being must be justified by scientific evidence within the meaning of Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1) of that regulation. To that end, it suffices for such references to be accompanied by specific health claims included in the lists provided for in Article 13 or Article 14 of that regulation.
C-485/18
- Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Groupe Lactalis v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Provision of food information to consumers - Article 9(1)(i) and Article 26(2)(a) - Mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of foods - Failure to indicate which might mislead the consumer - Article 38(1) - Matters specifically covered by the harmonisation - Article 39(2) - Adoption of national measures providing for additional mandatory particulars concerning the country of origin or place of provenance of specific types or categories of foods - Conditions - Existence of a proven link between one or several qualities of the foods concerned and their origin or provenance - Concepts of ‘proven link’ and ‘qualities’ - Evidence that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of that information - National measure providing for the mandatory indication of the national, European or non-European origin of milk
Operative part of the judgment
1. Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of milk or milk used as an ingredient must be regarded as a ‘matter specifically harmonised’ by that regulation, within the meaning of Article 38(1) of that regulation, where failure to include that indication might mislead the consumer, and as not precluding the Member States from adopting measures requiring additional mandatory particulars on the basis of Article 39 of that regulation, on the condition that those particulars are compatible with the objective pursued by the EU legislature by means of the specific harmonisation of the matter of mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance and that they form one coherent whole with that indication.
2. Article 39 of Regulation No 1169/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of national measures that are justified, in the light of paragraph 1 of that article, on grounds of the protection of consumers, the two criteria laid down in paragraph 2 of that article, that is to say, first, the existence of a ‘proven link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance’, and, second, the ‘evidence that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of that information’ must not be considered in combination, so that the existence of that proven link cannot be examined solely on the basis of subjective elements relating to the importance of the association that the majority of consumers may make between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance.
3. Article 39(2) of Regulation No 1169/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘qualities of the food’ does not include the resilience of the food to transport and the risk of deterioration during transit, so that that resilience cannot be taken into account when examining whether there is a possible ‘proven link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance’, referred to in that provision.
See also: Court of Justice Press Release Case 485/18
C-98/18
- Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — T. Boer & Zonen BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of health - Hygiene package - Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Hygiene of food of animal origin - Rules for food business operators - Specific requirements - Meat of domestic ungulates - Storage and transport - Requirements for the temperature of the meat
Operative part of the judgment:
- Annex III, Section I, Chapter VII, points 1 and 3, to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin must be interpreted as meaning that the chilling of meat after slaughter must be carried out in the slaughterhouse itself until the meat has reached a temperature throughout of not more than 7 oC before any loading of the meat into a refrigerated truck.
C-432/18
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena v Balema GmbH
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulations (EC) No 510/2006 and (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 13(1) - Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 - Article 1 - Registration of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’ - Protection of the non-geographical components of that name - Scope
Operative part of the judgment
Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)] must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ does not extend to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of that name.
See also: Court of Justice Press Release C-432/18
C-363/18
- Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Organisation juive européenne, Vignoble Psagot Ltd v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Provision of food information to consumers - Mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of a foodstuff where failure to indicate this might mislead the consumer - Requirement that foodstuffs originating in territories occupied by the State of Israel bear the indication of their territory of origin, accompanied, where those foodstuffs come from an Israeli settlement within that territory, by the indication of that provenance
Operative part of the judgment
Article 9(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, read in conjunction with Article 26(2)(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that foodstuffs originating in a territory occupied by the State of Israel must bear not only the indication of that territory but also, where those foodstuffs come from a locality or a group of localities constituting an Israeli settlement within that territory, the indication of that provenance.
See also: Court of Justice Press Release C-363/18
C-199/18, C-200/18 and C-343/18 (Joined Cases)
- Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Pollo del Campo S.c.a., Avi Coop Società Cooperativa Agricola (C-199/18), C.A.F.A.R. — Società Agricola Cooperativa, Società Agricola Guidi di Roncofreddo di Guidi Giancarlo e Nicolini Fausta (C-200/18) v Regione Emilia-Romagna, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale 104 di Modena, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-199/18 and C-200/18) and SAIGI Società Cooperativa Agricola a r.l., MA.GE.MA. Società Agricola Cooperativa v Regione Emilia-Romagna, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-343/18)
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Article 27 - Official controls of feed and food - Financing - Fees or charges payable for official controls - Possibility for the Member States to exempt certain categories of operators - Minimum rates for fees
Operative part of the judgment
1. Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are obliged to require the payment of fees relating to official controls on the activities referred to in Annex IV, section A and Annex V, section A to that regulation also from food and feed business operators which carry out the slaughtering and cutting of meat as ancillary activities to their main activity of rearing.
2. Article 27 of Regulation No 882/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow a Member State to apply rates for fees which are lower than the minimum rates specified in Annex IV, section B and Annex V, section B to Regulation No 882/2004
C-686/17
- Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV v Prime Champ Deutschland Pilzkulturen GmbH
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Fruit and vegetables - Marketing rules - Concept of ‘country of origin’ - Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 - Article 113 a(1) - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 76(1) - Definitions concerning the non-preferential origin of goods - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 23(1) and 23(2)(b) - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 60()1 - Delegated Regulation (EU)2015/2446 - Article 31(b) - Production steps carried out in another Member States - Labelling of foodstuffs - Prohibition on labelling which may mislead the consumer - Directive 2000/13/EC - Article 2(1)(a)(i) - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Article 7(1)(a) - Article 1(4) - Article 2(3) - Explanatory notes
Operative part of the judgment
1. Article 113a(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 361/2008 of 14 April 2008 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and No 1234/2007, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of defining the concept of ‘country of origin’, as referred to in those provisions, it is appropriate to refer to customs regulations relating to the determination of the non-preferential origin of goods, namely Article 23 et seq. (EEC) No 2913/92 of the Council of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code;
2. Article 23(1) and 23(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 and Article 60(1) of Regulation No 952/2013, read in conjunction with Article 31(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation No 952/2013 as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code, must be interpreted as meaning that the country of origin of cultivated fungi is the country in which they were harvested, within the meaning of those provisions, notwithstanding that substantial production steps take place in other Member States of the European Union and that cultivated fungi are transported to the territory of harvest only three days or less before the first harvest;
3. The general prohibition on misleading the consumer as regards the country of origin of foodstuffs, laid down in Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC of the Commission and Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 of the Commission, does not apply, in so far as concerns fresh fruit and vegetables, to the indication of origin required under Article 113a(1) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1308/2013;
4. Union law must be interpreted as meaning that explanatory notes may not be imposed in addition to the indication of the country of origin required under Article 113a(1) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 361/2008, and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1308/2013, in order to avoid misleading the consumer in accordance with the prohibition laid down in Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13 and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1169/2011.
C-347/17
- Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam — Netherlands) — A, B, C, D, E, F, G v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of health - Hygiene Package - Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Hygiene of food of animal origin - Poultry meat - Post-mortem inspection of carcasses - Visible contamination of a carcass - Zero-tolerance approach
Operative part of the judgment
1. Annex III, Section II, Chapter IV, points 5 and 8, to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘contamination’ includes not only contamination by faeces, but also contamination by crop contents and by bile.
2. Annex III, Section II, Chapter IV, points 5 and 8, to Regulation No 853/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a poultry carcass must no longer contain any visible contamination after the cleaning stage and before the chilling stage.
3. Annex I, Section I, Chapter II, Part D, point 1, to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 739/2011 of 27 July 2011, must be interpreted as not precluding the competent authority, for the purposes of inspecting poultry carcasses, from removing them from the slaughter line and carrying out both an external and internal examination of those carcasses, if necessary by lifting their fat tissue, provided that that examination does not go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of that control, which it is for the referring court to verify.
C-614/17
- Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain — Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego v Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud
- Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Article 13(1)(b) - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Manchego cheese (‘queso manchego’) - Use of signs capable of evoking the region with which a protected designation of origin (PDO) is associated - Concept of the ‘average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect’ - European consumers or consumers of the Member State in which the product covered by the PDO is made and mainly consumed
- (2019/C 220/05)
Operative part of the judgment
- Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that a registered name may be evoked through the use of figurative signs.
- Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 510/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the use of figurative signs evoking the geographical area with which a designation of origin, as referred to in Article 2(1)(a) of that regulation, is associated may constitute evocation of that designation, including where such figurative signs are used by a producer established in that region, but whose products, similar or comparable to those protected by the designation of origin, are not covered by it.
- The concept of the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to whose perception the national court has to refer in order to assess whether there is ‘evocation’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 510/2006, must be understood as covering European consumers, including consumers of the Member State in which the product giving rise to evocation of the protected name is made or with which that name is geographically associated and in which the product is mainly consumed.
See also: Court of Justice Press Release C-614/17
C-528/16
- Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État) - Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre and Ministre de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt
- Reference for a preliminary ruling — Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment — Mutagenesis — Directive 2001/18/EC — Articles 2 and 3 — Annexes I A and I B — Concept of ‘genetically modified organism’ — Techniques/methods of genetic modification conventionally used and deemed to be safe — New techniques/methods of mutagenesis — Risks for human health and the environment — Discretion of the Member States when transposing the directive — Directive 2002/53/EC — Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Herbicide-tolerant plant varieties — Article 4 — Acceptability of genetically modified varieties obtained by mutagenesis for inclusion in the common catalogue — Human health and environmental protection requirement — Exemption
See also: Court of Justice Press Release C-528/16
T-94/15 (see also: T-94/15 RENV)
- Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Binca Seafoods v Commission
- Production and labelling of organic products — Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Amendments to Regulation (EC) No889/2008 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 — Prohibition of hormones — Non-renewal of the transitional period concerning aquaculture animals provided for in Article 95(11) of RegulationNo889/2008 — Methods of reproduction — Exceptional authorisation to collect wild aquaculture juveniles foron-growingpurposes — Equal treatment
- Re: Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 97).
Operative part of the judgment
- 1. The action is dismissed.
- 2. Binca Seafoods GmbH is ordered to pay the costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.
Note: This page was not maintained during this missing period.
C-
393/01
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2003.
- French Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
- Agriculture - Animal health - Emergency measures to combat bovine spongiform
encephalopathy - Mad cow disease - Decision to lift the ban on bovine products
originating in Portugal.
- PRESS
RELEASE No 47/2003 : 22 May 2003, Judgment of the Court of Justice in
Case C-393/01
THE COURT OF JUSTICE ANNULS THE COMMISSION DECISION TO END THE BAN ON BOVINE
PRODUCTS FROM PORTUGAL, INTRODUCED TO COMBAT BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY
(BSE).
C-236-01
- Judgment of the Court of 9 September 2003.
- Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei
Ministri and Others.
- Regulation (EC) No 258/97 - Novel foods - Placing on the market - Safety
assessment - Simplified procedure - Substantial equivalence to existing foods
- Foods produced from genetically modified maize - Presence of residues of
transgenic protein - Measure by a Member State temporarily restricting or
suspending the trade in or use of a novel food in its territory.
- PRESS
RELEASE NO18/2003 : 13 March 2003, Opinion of the Advocate General
THE ADVOCATE GENERAL CONSIDERS THAT NOVEL FOODS MAY BE PLACED ON THE MARKET
UNDER A SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE EVEN WHEN THEY CONTAIN TRACES OF TRANSGENIC PROTEIN,
PROVIDED THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY SAFE IN TERMS OF HEALTH
- PRESS
RELEASE No 67/03: 9 September 2003, Judgment of the Court in Case C-236/01
THE MERE PRESENCE OF RESIDUES OF TRANSGENIC PROTEIN IN NOVEL FOODS DOES NOT
PREVENT THEIR BEING PLACED ON THE MARKET UNDER A SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE PROVIDED
THERE IS NO RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH
C-469/00
and C-108/01
Case C-469/00.
- Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2003.
- Ravil SARL v Bellon import SARL and Biraghi SpA.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour de cassation - France.
- Protected designations of origin - Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 - Regulation
(EEC) No 1107/96 - Grana Padano freshly grated - Specification - Convention
between two Member States - Condition that the cheese is grated and packaged
in the region of production - Articles 29 EC and 30 EC - Justification - Whether
the condition may be relied on against third parties - Legal certainty- Publicity.
Case C-108/01.
- Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2003.
- Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma and Salumificio S. Rita SpA v Asda Stores
Ltd and Hygrade Foods Ltd.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: House of Lords - United Kingdom.
- Protected designations of origin - Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 - Regulation
(EC) No 1107/96 - Prosciutto di Parma - Specification - Requirement for ham
to be sliced and packaged in the region of production - Articles 29 EC and
30 EC - Justification - Whether requirement may be relied on against third
parties - Legal certainty - Publicity.
- PRESS
RELEASE No 42/2003 : 20 May 2003, Judgments of the Court of Justice in
Cases C-469/00 and C-108/01
THE COURT CONFIRMS THE EXTENT OF PROTECTION CONFERRED BY COMMUNITY LEGISLATION
ON GRANA PADANO CHEESE AND PARMA HAM
- PRESS
RELEASE NO 36/2002, 25 April 2002, Opinion of the Advocate General
ADVOCATE GENERAL ALBER GIVES HIS VIEW ON THE SCOPE OF THE PROTECTION CONFERRED
BY THE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN PROSCIUTTO DI PARMA AND GRANA PADANO
C-66/00
- Judgment of the Court of 25 June 2002
- Criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi, third party: Consorzio del Formaggio
Parmigiano Reggiano.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunale di Parma - Italy.
- Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 - Protection of geographical indications and
designations of origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs - Article 13
- System of derogations - Scope.
- PRESS
RELEASE No 58/02, 25 June 2002, Judgment of the Court in Case C-66/00
FOR REASONS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION AND FAIR COMPETITION, 'IMITATION' PARMESAN
MANUFACTURED IN ITALY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PROTECTION UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL
PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN
- PRESS
RELEASE No 49/01, 9 October 2001, Opinion of Advocate General Léger in
Case C-66/00
ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER PROPOSES THAT THE COURT SHOULD ALLOW THE ITALIAN
REPUBLIC TO PROHIBIT THE PRODUCTION IN ITALY OF "PARMESAN" CHEESE THAT DOES
NOT HAVE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF REAL "PARMIGIANO REGGIANO"
C-12/00
and C-14/00
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2003.
- Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (C-12/00)
and Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (C-14/00)
- Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods
- Directive 73/241/EEC - Cocoa and chocolate products containing fats other
than cocoa butter - Products lawfully manufactured and marketed in the Member
State of production under the sales name 'chocolate' - Prohibition on marketing
under that name in the Member State of marketing- Requirement to use the name
'chocolate substitute'
- PRESS
RELEASE No 03/03, 16 January 2003, Judgments in Cases C-12/00 and C-14/00,
Commission v Spain and Italy
SPAIN AND ITALY ARE FOUND TO HAVE WRONGLY PROHIBITED THE MARKETING UNDER
THE NAME 'CHOCOLATE' OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING VEGETABLE FATS OTHER THAN COCOA
BUTTER
- PRESS
RELEASE No 64/01, 6 December 2001, Opinion of Advocate General Siegbert
Alber in Cases C-12/00 and C-14/00
PRODUCTS LABELLED "CHOCOLATE" DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE COCOA BUTTER AS THE
SOLE VEGETABLE FAT INGREDIENT
C-3/00
- Judgment of the Court of 20 March 2003.
- Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European Communities.
- Approximation of laws - Directive 95/2/EC - Use of sulphites, nitrites and
nitrates as food additives - Protection of health - Stricter national provisions
- Conditions of application of Article 95(4) EC - Principle of the right to
be heard.
- PRESS
RELEASE No 20/03 : 20 March 2003, Judgment of the Court of Justice in
Case C-3/00
THE COURT ANNULS THE COMMISSION'S DECISION REFUSING AUTHORISATION FOR DANISH
PROVISIONS STRICTER THAN COMMUNITY PROVISIONS ON THE USE OF NITRATES AND NITRITES
AS FOOD ADDITIVES.
C-1/00
- Judgment of the Court of 13 December 2001.
- Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
- Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Refusal to end the
ban on British beef and veal.
- PRESS
RELEASE No 68/01, 13 December 2001, Judgment of the Court of Justice in
Case C-1/00
THE COURT DECLARES UNLAWFUL FRANCE'S REFUSAL TO LIFT THE BAN ON CORRECTLY
MARKED OR LABELLED IMPORTS OF BRITISH BEEF AND VEAL FROM 30 DECEMBER 1999.
- PRESS
RELEASE No 43/01, 20 September 2001, Opinion in Case C-1/00
ADVOCATE GENERAL JEAN MISCHO DELIVERS HIS OPINION ON THE LIFTING OF THE
BAN ON BRITISH MEAT
C-6/99
- Judgment of the Court of 21 March 2000.
- Association Greenpeace France and Others v Ministère de l'Agriculture et
de la Pêche and Others.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Conseil d'Etat - France.
- Directive 90/220/EEC - Biotechnology - Genetically modified organisms -
Decision 97/98/EC - Maize seeds.
- PRESS
RELEASE NO 18/00 , 21 March 2000, Judgment of the Court of Justice in
Case C-6/99
COMMUNITY LAW ON THE RELEASE OF GMOs TAKES FULL ACCOUNT OF THE PRECAUTIONARY
PRINCIPLE
C-448/98
- Judgment of the Court of 5 December 2000.
- Criminal proceedings against Jean-Pierre Guimont.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de police de Belley - France.
- Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - Purely
internal situation - Manufacture and marketing of Emmenthal cheese without
rind.
- PRESS
RELEASE No 86/00, 5 December 2000, Judgment of the Court of Justice in
Case C-448/98
THE COURT FINDS THAT FRENCH LEGISLATION ON THE USE OF THE NAME "EMMENTHAL"
IS AGAINST COMMUNITY LAW
C-366/98
- Judgment of the Court of 12 September 2000.
- Criminal proceedings against Yannick Geffroy and Casino France SNC.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour d'appel de Lyon - France.
- Free movement of goods - National legislation on the marketing of a product
- Description and labelling - National legislation requiring use of the official
language of the Member State - Directive 79/112/EEC.
- PRESS
RELEASE No 58/00, 12 September 2000, Judgment of the Court of Justice
in Case C-366/98
A REQUIREMENT THAT ONLY ONE LANGUAGE MAY BE USED FOR LABELLING FOODSTUFFS
IS CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY LAW
C-107/97
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 May 2000.
- Criminal proceedings against Max Rombi and Arkopharma SA, the party liable
at civil law, and Union fédérale des consommateurs "Que Choisir ?" and Organisation
générale des consommateurs (Orgeco), Union départementale O6.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de grande instance de Grasse
- France.
- Food supplements - Directive 89/398/EEC - Transposition - Conditions - Retention
of previous national legislation - Additive - L-Carnitine.
C-385/96
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 1998.
- Criminal proceedings against Hermann Josef Goerres.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Amtsgericht Aachen - Germany.
- Approximation of laws - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Directive
79/112/EEC - Consumer protection - Language.
C-210/96
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 1998.
- Gut Springenheide GmbH and Rudolf Tusky v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises
Steinfurt - Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesverwaltungsgericht - Germany.
- Marketing standards for eggs - Promotional descriptions or statements liable
to mislead the purchaser - Reference consumer.
- PRESS
RELEASE No 48/98, 16 July 1998, Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case
C-210/96
IN ORDER TO ASSESS WHETHER A STATEMENT OR DESCRIPTION APPEARING ON THE
PACKAGING OF A FOOD PRODUCT IS MISLEADING, THE NATIONAL COURT MUST TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE PRESUMED EXPECTATIONS OF THE AVERAGE CONSUMER WHO IS REASONABLY
WELL-INFORMED AND REASONABLY OBSERVANT AND CIRCUMSPECT.
C-85/94
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 1995.
- Groupement des Producteurs, Importateurs et Agents Généraux d'Eaux Minérales
Etrangères, VZW (Piageme) and others v Peeters NV.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hof van Beroep Brussel - Belgium.
- Consumer protection - Labelling of mineral waters - Language.
C-46/93
and C-48/93
- Judgment of the Court of 5 March 1996.
- Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The Queen v Secretary
of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others.
- References for a preliminary ruling: Bundesgerichtshof - Germany and High
Court of justice, Queen's Bench Division, Divisional court - United Kingdom.
- Principle of Member State liability for damage caused to individuals by
breaches of Community law attributable to the State - Breaches attributable
to the national legislature - Conditions for State liability - Extent of reparation.
298/87
- Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 1988.
- Proceedings for compulsory reconstruction against Smanor SA.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de commerce de L'Aigle - France.
- Prohibition of the use of the name 'deep-frozen yoghurt'.
302/86
- Judgment of the Court of 20 September 1988.
- Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark.
- Free movement of goods - Containers for beer and soft drinks.
90/86
- Judgment of the Court of 14 July 1988.
- Criminal proceedings against Zoni.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Pretura di Milano - Italy.
- Free movement of goods - Pasta products - Obligation to use only durum wheat.
178/84
- Judgment of the Court of 12 March 1987.
- Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
- Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations - Purity requirement for beer.
240/83
- Judgment of the Court of 7 February 1985.
- Procureur de la République v Association de défense des brûleurs d'huiles
usagées (ADBHU).
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de grande instance de Créteil
- France.
- Free movement of goods - Waste oils.
227/82
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 November 1983.
- Criminal proceedings against Leendert van Bennekom.
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam -
Netherlands.
- Concept of "Medicinal products" - "Medicinal preparations".
120/78
- Judgment of the Court of 20 February 1979.
- Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein. (Cassis de Dijon)
- Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hessisches Finanzgericht - Germany.
- Measures heaving an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions.
This page was first provided on 4 January 2002
To go to main Foodlaw-Reading
Index page, click here.