Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:501
Date: 2013-07-18
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws;Public health
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Czechia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 18 July 2013 1. Approximation of laws — Nutrition and health claims made on foods — Regulation No 1924/2006 — Reduction of disease risk claim — Health claim — Obligation to expressly state the effect of a risk for health — None (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1924/2006, Art. 2(2), paras 5 and 6) 2. Approximation of laws — Nutrition and health claims made on foods — Regulation No 1924/2006 — Commercial communication appearing on the packaging of a food — Protection as a trade mark or trade name — Lawfulness — Conditions — Equivalent protection under the applicable rules — Verification by the national court (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1924/2006, Art. 28(2)) 3. Approximation of laws — Nutrition and health claims made on foods — Regulation No 1924/2006 — Products bearing trade marks or brand names — Protection as a mark or as a name — Limits — Derogations and transitional measures (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1924/2006, Art. 28(2)) 1. A ‘health claim’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(5) of Regulation No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods is the relationship that must exist between a food or one of its constituents and health; that definition provides no information as to whether that relationship must be direct or indirect, or as to its intensity or duration, so that the term ‘relationship’ must be understood in a broad sense. In that context, paragraph 6 of that provision does not require that such a claim expressly states that the consumption of a food significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease. It is sufficient that that claim may give the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect the impression that the reduction of a risk factor is significant. (see paras 22, 24, 26, operative part 1) 2. Article 28(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial communication appearing on the packaging of a food may constitute a trade mark or brand name, within the meaning of that provision, provided that it is protected, as a mark or as a name, by the applicable legislation. It is for the national court to ascertain, having regard to all the legal and factual considerations of the case before it, whether that communication is indeed a trade mark or brand name thus protected. (see para. 32, operative part 2) 3. Article 28(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be interpreted as referring only to foods bearing a trade mark or brand name which must be considered a nutrition or health claim within the meaning of that regulation and which, in that form, existed before 1 January 2005. (see paras 36, 37, operative part 3)