Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2021:1027
Date: 2021-12-16
Language of the case: Hungarian
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Foodstuffs;Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Translation C-533/20 – 1 
Case C-533/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
21 October 2020 
Referring court: 
Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
20 October 2020 
Applicant and respondent: 
Upfield Hungary Kft. 
Defendant and appellant:  
Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal (Government Delegation in the 
Somogy county, Hungary) 
  
Decision 
of the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary), 
as the appellate court 
[…] 
Applicant: Upfield Hungary Kft. ([…] Budapest, Hungary […]) 
[…] 
Defendant: Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal (Government Delegation in the 
Somogy county, Hungary) ([…] Kaposvár, Hungary […]) 
[…] 
Subject matter of the proceedings: administrative-law consumer protection 
proceedings 
Appellant: the defendant 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20.10.2020 – CASE C-533/20 
 
2  
[…] [procedural considerations of domestic law] 
Decision 
The Kúria (Supreme Court) […] requests a preliminary ruling from the Court of 
Justice of the European Union, to which it refers the following question: 
‘Must the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 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, 
and specifically Article 18(2) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, where 
vitamins are added to foods, the list of the ingredients of the food must 
include not only the names of the vitamins, but also their designation in 
accordance with the vitamin formulations which may be added to foods? 
[…] [procedural considerations of domestic law] 
Grounds 
Arguments of fact 
1 The applicant markets margarines, and has been the first company to distribute the 
product known as ‘Flóra ProActiv, a 35% fat vegetable spread containing added 
plant sterols’ (‘the product’) in the Hungarian market. In the list of the product’s 
ingredients, the applicant included ‘vitamins (A, D)’, to indicate that the product 
contains added vitamins A and D. 
2 The defendant authority noted that, in listing the ingredients on the product 
labelling, the applicant had failed to comply with 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, since, in the case of vitamins, and having regard 
also to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals 
and of certain other substances to foods, the list of ingredients should have 
included the names of the formulations used. It therefore issued a warning to the 
applicant, ordering it to cease the infringement with immediate effect. 
UPFIELD HUNGARY 
 
3 
3 The court of first instance which heard the administrative-law action brought by 
the applicant annulled the defendant’s decision with retroactive effect from the 
date of notification, declaring that Regulation No 1169/2011 does not define the 
concept of ‘their specific name’ and contains no further provisions on this matter, 
and that Article 7 of Regulation No 1925/2006 establishes rules on labelling, 
presentation and advertising, but does not regulate the naming of ingredients. 
Given that all the formulations listed in Annex II to Regulation No 1925/2006 
[under the relevant headings] constitute vitamin A or vitamin D, and that neither 
Regulation No 1169/2011 nor any other provision of law defines the concept of 
‘their specific name’, the court concluded that there is no provision that prevents 
the inclusion of the names vitamin A or vitamin D in the list of the product’s 
ingredients. 
4 The court of first instance also referred to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on 
foods, which includes an annex containing nutrition claims and conditions 
applying to them. In the view of the court, provided that the quantitative 
requirements are satisfied, a statement that the product contains vitamin A or 
vitamin D is equivalent to and has the same meaning as a designation of the 
sources of the vitamin A or vitamin D. The court of first instance added that the 
statement is clear and comprehensible only if the distributor designates the 
vitamins included in the ingredients by their common everyday names ― in this 
case, vitamin A and vitamin D ― rather than by the vitamin formulation; this is 
also the most consumer-friendly interpretation. 
5 The defendant authority lodged an appeal against the final judgment with the 
Kúria (Supreme Court), arguing that any substance, and therefore any component 
of a compound ingredient within the meaning of Article 2(2)(f) and (h) of 
Regulation No 1169/2011, must be stated on the packaging and that, since 
Regulation No 1925/2006 expressly includes the names of such substances, these 
must be deemed ‘their specific name’. It also argues that Regulation 
No 1924/2006 is not relevant to the case, since that regulation is concerned with 
claims that provide consumers with information about the product’s vitamin 
content and cannot affect the application of mandatory requirements regarding 
composition. Lastly, it states that the formulations used in the composition are 
important to the authority for measurement methodology and technology reasons 
in connection with analytical testing of food. 
6 In its appeal, the defendant states that the case-law on this matter is not uniform, 
and submits a judgment by a different court which, based on the same legislation, 
comes to a different conclusion from that in the judgment under appeal in the 
present case before the referring court. 
7 In its defence to the appeal, the applicant asks for the final judgment to be upheld, 
noting that it would not aid consumer understanding to state the composition or 
chemical name of the vitamin or mineral and that, in its view, normal market 
practice is to state the name of the vitamin rather than its formulation. The 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20.10.2020 – CASE C-533/20 
 
4  
applicant also contends that the practice of Hungarian administrative authorities is 
not uniform on this matter. 
8 With regard to the arguments of fact, the referring court notes that it has been 
made aware through official channels that, as a general rule, the packaging of 
foods on sale includes only the name of the vitamins (for example, vitamin C), but 
that in certain cases the vitamin formulations are included among the ingredients. 
It also wishes to point out that there is no Kúria (Supreme Court) case-law on 
naming vitamins as food ingredients, and that the case-law of the lower courts is 
not uniform. 
The question referred 
9 The Kúria (Supreme Court) considers that in the present proceedings an answer is 
needed to the question of what is meant, in the case of vitamins, by ‘their specific 
name’ for the purposes of the application of Article 18(2) of Regulation 
No 1169/2011; this requires an interpretation of the regulation. 
10 Pursuant to Article 10(1) of the az élelmiszerláncról és hatósági felügyeletéről 
szóló 2008. évi XLVI. törvény (Law XLVI of 2008 on the food chain and the 
official supervision thereof), food may only be placed on the market if the 
labelling contains, in Hungarian, the information specified in the legislation 
implementing Law XLVI and in EU law with direct effect, and the information is 
comprehensible, clear and legible, in accordance with the provisions of the 
legislation. 
11 Article 18(i) of Regulation No 1169/2011 stipulates that the list of ingredients 
must include all the ingredients of the food. The concept of ingredient is defined 
in Article 2(2)(f) as any substance or product, including flavourings, food 
additives and food enzymes, and any constituent of a compound ingredient, used 
in the manufacture or preparation of a food and still present in the finished 
product, even if in an altered form; residues are not considered as ingredients. 
Article 2(2)(h) specifies that a compound ingredient means an ingredient that is 
itself the product of more than one ingredient. 
12 Article 18(2) of Regulation No 1169/2011 stipulates that ingredients must be 
designated by their specific name, where applicable, in accordance with the rules 
laid down in Article 17 and in Annex VI. 
13 Annex I of Regulation No 1925/2006 lists the vitamins and minerals which may 
be added to foods, and Annex II lists the vitamin formulations and mineral 
substances which may be added to foods. 
14 The Kúria (Supreme Court) notes that, pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation 
No 1925/2006, nutrition labelling of products to which vitamins and minerals 
have been added and which are covered by the regulation is compulsory. The 
information to be provided consists of that specified in Article 4(1), Group 2 of 
UPFIELD HUNGARY 
 
5 
Directive 90/496/EEC and of the total amounts present of the vitamins and 
minerals when added to the food. Article 7(5) establishes that the article applies 
without prejudice to other provisions of food law applicable to specified 
categories of food. Article 1(4) of Directive 90/496 refers to vitamins in its 
definition of ‘nutrition labelling’, and Article 6 and the annex to the directive 
expressly require the vitamins to be declared, rather than their formulations. 
15 The concept of ‘their specific name’ is not defined in legislation. 
16 In the light of the above, the referring court considers that, for the purposes of the 
application of Article 18(2) of Regulation No 1169/2011, in the case of vitamins it 
is not clear what constitutes ‘their specific name’. This problem of interpretation 
is corroborated by the lack of uniformity in the practices followed by distributors, 
administrative authorities and the courts. 
17 Under subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), the Court of Justice of the 
European Union has jurisdiction to give rulings concerning the interpretation of 
acts of the institutions of the Union. 
18 Pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, where a question of 
interpretation is raised before a national court against whose decisions there is no 
judicial remedy under national law, and the court considers that a decision on the 
question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, the court must bring the matter 
before the Court of Justice. Since there is no judicial remedy against the decision 
of the Kúria (Supreme Court) under Hungarian law, the Kúria (Supreme Court) 
must make a reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of EU law 
(judgment of 18 July 2013, Consiglio Nazionale dei Geologi, C-136/12, 
EU:C:2013:489, paragraph 25). 
19 With regard to its obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling, the 
referring court notes that, in view of the contradictory practices referred to above, 
it considers there is a need to avert the risk of an incorrect interpretation of EU 
law (judgment of 9 September 2015, Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others, 
C-160/14, EU:C:2015:565, paragraphs 41 to 45). 
Final section 
[…] [procedural considerations of domestic law] 
Budapest, 20 October 2020. 
[…] [signatures]