Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public health — Information and consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Health claims relating to food — Article 10(1) and (3) — Concept of ‘accompanying’ a specific health claim — Reference to general, non-specific beneficial effects — Obligation to produce scientific evidence — Scope)
The question concerning scientific evidence has been addressed in the Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in Nelsons (C‑177/15). ( 3 ) In the light of this, I accordingly propose — in line with the Court’s request — to confine the present Opinion so as to address solely the issue concerning the interpretation of Article 10(3). Before doing so, it is necessary to set out the relevant legislative background.
Regulation No 1924/2006 states in recital 1 that ‘an increasing number of foods labelled and advertised in the Community bear nutrition and health claims. In order to ensure a high level of protection for consumers and to facilitate their choice, products put on the market … must be safe and adequately labelled’.
Recital 23 provides that ‘health claims should only be authorised for use in the Community after a scientific assessment of the highest possible standard. In order to ensure harmonised scientific assessment of these claims, the European Food Safety Authority should carry out such assessments’.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.