Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2013:746
Date: 2013-11-14
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws;Public health
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary 98. In the light of the foregoing and in accordance with a textual, teleological and systematic interpretation of Articles 10(1) and (2), 28(5) and 29 of Regulation No 1924/2006, I am of the view that Articles 10(2) and 28(5) must be interpreted as meaning that the duties to provide information contained in Article 10(2) have had to be observed since 1 July 2007. V – Conclusion 99. I therefore propose that the Court answer the question referred to it for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof as follows: Articles 10(2) and 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 Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, are to be interpreted as meaning that the duties to provide information contained in Article 10(2) have had to be observed since 1 July 2007. 1 – Original language: French. 2 – OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9, and Corrigendum OJ 2007 L 12, p. 3. 3 – OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16. 4 – Case C‑544/10 Deutsches Weintor [2012] ECR, paragraph 34. 5 – Paragraph 9 of the reference for a preliminary ruling (emphasis added). 6 – Ibid., paragraph 9. 7 ? Case C‑138/08 Hochtief and Linde-Kca-Dresden [2009] ECR I‑9889, paragraphs 20 to 22. See also Joined Cases C‑42/10, C‑45/10 and C‑57/10 Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging and Janssens [2011] ECR I‑2975, paragraphs 42 to 44. 8 ? Case 270/81 Felicitas Rickmers-Linie [1982] ECR 2771. 9 – Ibid., paragraph 9. 10 – Case C‑220/06 Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia [2007] ECR I‑12175, paragraph 36. 11 – Ibid., paragraph 36. 12 ? Opinion of 26 January 2010 in Case C‑409/06 Winner Wetten [2010] ECR I‑8015, point 35. 13 ? Deutsches Weintor, paragraph 34. 14 ? Ibid., paragraph 34 (emphasis added). 15 ? With regard to that concept of a ‘health claim’, Sébastien Roset thus refers to a ‘good example of those open or “catch all” concepts which have a more than imprecise legal content and are intended to encompass the maximum number of factual situations capable of harming consumer protection’. In his opinion, the Court has therefore favoured ‘a broad understanding of the concept; as the very wording of Article 2 [of the Regulation] invited it to do’ (emphasis added). See Roset, S., ‘Santé publique: publicité et étiquetage des alcools et protection des consommateurs’, Europe, 2012, November, comm. 430. See also Prouteau, J., ‘Santé publique et libertés économiques: une nouvelle illustration d’une conciliation favorable à la santé publique’, Revue Lamy Droit des affaires, 2012, No 77, pp. 66 to 68; Van der Meulen, B., and van der Zee, E., ‘“Through the Wine Gate”: First Steps towards Human Rights Awareness in EU Food (Labelling) Law’, European Food and Feed Law Review, 2013, No 1, pp. 41 to 52, in particular p. 44. 16 ? Case C‑299/12 Green — Swan Pharmaceuticals CR [2013] ECR, paragraph 22. 17 ? Ibid., paragraph 24 (emphasis added). 18 ? See, inter alia, the press release from the French Académie nationale de médecine (National Academy of Medicine) on milk products, adopted on 1 April 2008 (Bull. Acad. Méd. 2008, vol. 192, No 4, pp. 723 to 730) and the World Health Organization’s Guiding Principles for Feeding Non-Breastfed Children 6-24 Months of Age. 19 ? See Commission Regulation (EC) No 657/2008 of 10 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards Community aid for supplying milk and certain milk products to pupils in educational establishments (OJ 2008 L 183, p. 17). 20 ? Special Report No 10/2011 of the Court of Auditors, ‘Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?’, p. 5. 21 ? Paragraph 24 of the judgment. 22 ? Deutsches Weintor, paragraph 34. 23 ? Green — Swan Pharmaceuticals CR, paragraph 24 (emphasis added). 24 ? Recital 16 in the preamble to Regulation No 1924/2006. 25 ? Ibid. 26 ? Ibid. 27 ? ‘While, on the basis of the case-file as it stands, that premiss is debatable, it may also be confirmed by the referring court’ (Opinion of Advocate General Bot in Winner Wetten, point 36). 28 ? For its part, Article 28(6) of the Regulation relates to health claims other than those referred to in Articles 13(1)(a) and 14. 29 ? OJ 2013 L 22, p. 25. See, in particular, the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Introduction to the Guidelines. 30 ? Recital 35 in the preamble to Regulation No 1924/2006.