Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:337
Date: 2025-05-08
Language of the case: Swedish
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Sweden

Translation C-315/24 - 1 
Case C-315/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
29 April 2024 
Referring court: 
Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
25 April 2024 
Appellant: 
Nestlé Sverige AB 
Respondent: 
Miljönämnden i Helsingborgs kommun 
  
[…] 
The Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden) 
makes the following  
ORDER 
A request for a preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267 TFEU is to be 
made to the Court of Justice of the European Union as set out in the annexed 
request for such preliminary ruling (annex to the minutes). 
ANNEX 
Request for a preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267 TFEU 
concerning the interpretation of Articles 5(2)(g) and 6(2) of Commission 
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 supplementing Regulation (EU) 
No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the 
specific compositional and information requirements for food for special 
medical purposes (‘Regulation 2016/128’) 
Introduction 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 4. 2024 – CASE C-315/24 
 
2  
1 The Supreme Administrative Court seeks a preliminary ruling in order to clarify 
whether certain information regarding energy value and the amount of different 
nutrients on packaging containing food for special medical purposes constitutes a 
prohibited repetition of the information included in the mandatory nutrition 
declaration or whether, on the contrary, it constitutes authorised information that 
supplements the mandatory nutrition declaration. 
2 The question referred for a preliminary ruling has arisen in a case concerning a 
decision issued by a public authority requiring a company in the food sector to 
remove information on energy value and actual nutrient levels from labelling. The 
answer to the question is relevant to the review of the validity of the decision 
issued. 
Relevant provisions of European Union law 
3 Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council 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 (‘Regulation 1169/2011’), contains a list of particulars which are 
mandatory in the labelling of a food, including a nutrition declaration. 
4 Article 30(1) provides that the mandatory nutrition declaration is to include the 
energy value and the amounts of different nutrients. According to Article 32(2), 
the energy value and the amount of nutrients are to be expressed per 100 g or per 
100 ml. 
5 It follows from Article 33(1) that, under certain conditions, the nutrition 
declaration may also include the energy value and the amounts of nutrients 
expressed per portion and/or per consumption unit. 
6 Regulation 2016/128 lays down specific information requirements for food for 
special medical purposes. Under Article 5(2), in addition to the mandatory 
particulars listed in Article 9(1) of Regulation 1169/2011, certain additional 
particulars are mandatory for such food, including a description of the properties 
and/or characteristics that make the product useful in relation to the disease, 
disorder or medical condition for the dietary management of which the product is 
intended, in particular, as the case may be, relating to the special processing and 
formulation, the nutrients which have been increased, reduced, eliminated or 
otherwise modified and the rationale of the use of the product (point g). 
7 Under Article 6(2) of Regulation 2016/128, the information included in the 
mandatory nutrition declaration is not to be repeated on the labelling. 
NESTLÉ SVERIGE 
 
3 
The facts of the case 
8 Miljönämnden i Helsingborgs kommun (the Environmental Administration in 
Helsingborg Municipality) decided to require Nestlé Sverige Aktiebolag to 
remove information on the energy value and actual levels of nutrients (such as fat, 
protein and fibre) from packaging containing food for special medical purposes. 
According to the Environmental Administration, information that is provided 
elsewhere than in the nutrition declaration is not permitted under Article 6(2) of 
Regulation 2016/128, as it constitutes a repetition of information contained in the 
mandatory nutrition declaration. 
9 The disputed information is found on the front of the packaging. There, the energy 
value and amounts of nutrients are not expressed per 100 g or per 100 ml, which is 
the form of expression that should be used in the mandatory nutrition declaration. 
For example, on one of the packages containing 200 ml, the energy value is given 
in kcal per 200 ml. 
10 The company requested, without success, a review of the decision before the 
Environment Administration and, on appeal, the Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län (Skåne 
County Administrative Board). The company appealed to the Förvaltningsrätten i 
Malmö (Administrative Court, Malmö) seeking annulment of the decision. The 
company argued that the information does not constitute a repetition of 
information included in the mandatory nutrition declaration, but rather 
supplements it in order to fulfil the requirement of Article 5(2)(g) of Regulation 
2016/128. 
11 The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, as did the Kammarrätten i 
Göteborg (Administrative Court of Appeal, Gothenburg) after the company 
brought an appeal before it too. Both the Administrative Court and the 
Administrative Court of Appeal considered that it does amount to a prohibited 
repetition of the mandatory nutrition declaration. According to the courts, it was 
irrelevant that the information is expressed in a different way than in the 
mandatory nutrition declaration; it is the information itself that must not be 
repeated. According to the Administrative Court of Appeal, neither does the 
information contain any information other than that contained in the mandatory 
nutrition declaration. Therefore, according to the Administrative Court of Appeal, 
it is not information which must be indicated pursuant to Article 5(2)(g) of 
Regulation 2016/128. 
12 The company brought an appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court 
of Appeal and requests the Supreme Administrative Court to annul the decision. 
The Environmental Administration asserts that the appeal should be dismissed. 
Positions of the parties 
Nestlé Sverige Aktiebolag 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 4. 2024 – CASE C-315/24 
 
4  
13 The company submits the following. The information constitutes a description of 
the properties and features of the product, which are necessary to ensure its proper 
use. The labelling makes it easier for healthcare professionals in a stressful 
environment and carers without medical training to identify the appropriate 
product. Since the information is given per portion or per package and not per 
100 g or per 100 ml, it does not amount to the same information as in the 
mandatory nutrition declaration. This method of labelling food for special medical 
purposes is a sectoral practice across the EU and the labelling has been accepted 
in other EU countries. 
Environmental Administration in Helsingborg Municipality 
14 The Environment Administration submits the following. The requirement to 
provide a description of what makes the product particularly useful and which 
nutrients have been modified for that reason is not the same as specifically 
repeating the energy value or the amount of a particular nutrient. It is possible to 
describe which nutrients have been increased or reduced, eliminated or modified 
without indicating the amount. It is a repetition of the information, even if it is 
expressed, for example, per 200 ml. 
The need for a preliminary ruling 
15 It is undisputed in the present case that the company labelled the products in 
question by indicating the energy value and the amounts of different nutrients per 
portion or per consumption unit. In order to determine whether that labelling 
complies with the provisions of Regulation 2016/128, the Supreme Administrative 
Court must decide whether those particulars constitute a prohibited repetition of 
the information in the mandatory nutrition declaration (Article 6(2)) or whether, 
on the contrary, it constitutes authorised information which supplements the 
mandatory nutrition declaration (Article 5(2)(g)). It is therefore a question of how 
those two articles should be interpreted and how they relate to each other. 
16 Under Article 5(2)(g), the labelling must contain a description of the properties 
and/or characteristics that make the product useful in relation to the disease, 
disorder or medical condition for the dietary management of which the product is 
intended, in particular, the nutrients which have been increased, reduced, 
eliminated or otherwise modified. According to the Administrative Court of 
Appeal, the disputed information on the company’s labelling does not constitute 
such a description, as it does not contain any more information than that contained 
in the mandatory nutrition declaration. The company maintains, on the contrary, 
that those particulars are key information that supplements the nutrition 
declaration. 
17 It is furthermore the case that Article 6(2) prohibits repeating on the labelling the 
information in the mandatory nutrition declaration, which must include 
information on energy value and the amounts of different nutrients. The lower 
NESTLÉ SVERIGE 
 
5 
courts held that the consequence of that prohibition is that the information as it 
appears on the company’s labelling is not permitted under the regulation. 
18 The Supreme Administrative Court notes in that regard that it would be possible 
in principle for the company to fulfil the requirement laid down in Article 5(2)(g) 
without indicating the actual content, but the question is whether it is necessary to 
formulate the description in that way. 
19 The company’s labelling of the products expresses the information on energy 
value and the amounts of the different nutrients differently from the way they are 
to be expressed in the mandatory nutrition declaration according to Article 32(2) 
of Regulation No 1169/2011. They are thus not expressed per 100 g or per 100 ml. 
Instead, the particulars are expressed per portion or per consumption unit, that is 
to say, in accordance with the form of expression permitted by Article 33(1) of 
that regulation. The company emphasises this point in its argument that the 
information does not constitute a repetition. The lower courts, conversely, 
consider this to be irrelevant. 
20 As is apparent from the foregoing, it is possible to take different approaches. The 
Court of Justice has not ruled on the two articles at the centre of the case, namely 
Articles 5(2)(g) and 6(2) of Regulation 2016/128. 
21 The Supreme Administrative Court therefore considers it necessary to make a 
reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 
Questions 
22 The Supreme Administrative Court requests an answer to the following questions. 
Question 1: Can information regarding a product’s energy value and the amounts 
of different nutrients it contains, which is provided elsewhere than in the nutrition 
declaration, constitute an additional description of the product’s properties and 
characteristics, as referred to in Article 5(2)(g) of Regulation 2016/128? 
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 6(2), 
which prohibits the repetition on the labelling of the information included in the 
mandatory nutrition declaration, preclude the indication, in a description under 
Article 5(2)(g), of information on the energy value and the amounts of different 
nutrients, if that information is expressed in a way other than per 100 g or per 
100 ml?