Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:56
Date: 2026-01-29
Language of the case: French

Summary C-721/24 – 1 
Case C-721/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
22 October 2024 
Referring court: 
Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels, Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
4 October 2024 
Appellants: 
Vista-Life Pharma SA 
Vista-Life Pharma Belgium SCRL 
Respondents 
Laboratoires S.M.B. SA 
Brussels Reps Pharma SRL 
  
1. Subject matter and circumstances of the dispute:  
1 Laboratoires S.M.B. SA and Brussels Reps Pharma SRL (together ‘SMB’) are 
active in the pharmaceutical and parapharmaceutical sector. SMB’s three main 
medicinal products are D-Cure, Befact Forte and Pravafenix. Since 1997, SMB 
has also produced and marketed food supplements, including A-D Cure Solution, 
D-Cura Sol 200, D-Calcium and, since 2018, D-Cura Tab and Befact Duo. 
2 Vista-Life Pharma SA and Vista-Life Pharma Belgium SCRL (together ‘Vista-
Life’) also market food supplements, including the food supplements Vista-D3 
(their best-known product) and VistaSterol. They are competitors of SMB in that 
sector. 
3 In 2019, Vista-Life brought the first proceedings against SMB, claiming that the 
presentation in SMB’s marketing of the D-Cura Tab and Befact Duo food 
supplements gave the impression that they were medicinal products. In a judgment 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-721/24 
 
2  
handed down on 17 December 2020, the President of the tribunal de l’entreprise 
francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Business Court (French-speaking)) granted in 
part the injunctive relief sought by Vista-Life against SMB. SMB appealed against 
that judgment, and the proceedings are currently pending before the cour d’appel 
(Court of Appeal). However, that dispute is not the subject matter of the present 
proceedings.  
4 Following that dispute, SMB initially complained of two advertisements published 
in February 2021 by Vista-Life for its Vista-D3 food supplement in the periodicals 
‘Le Pharmacien’ and ‘Pharmassistant(e)’, specialist magazines aimed at 
pharmacists, which used the statement ‘stable plasma levels’, (see pages 5 and 6 
of the order for reference, where those two advertisements are reproduced), and an 
advertisement published in April 2021 in the periodical ‘Pharmassistant(e)’ for 
Vista-Life’s food supplement VistaSterol, which included the statement ‘the 
solution for controlling cholesterol’ (see page 8 of the order for reference, where 
that advertisement is reproduced).  
5 On 9 June 2021, SMB brought before the President of the tribunal de l’entreprise 
francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Business Court (French-speaking)), sitting in 
proceedings for injunctive relief, an action against Vista-Life for a declaration that 
the aforementioned statements are health claims which infringe Articles 10 and 
14(2) 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 
(‘Regulation No 1924/2006’) and, consequently, Article VI.104 of the Code de 
droit économique (Code of Economic Law, ‘the CDE’), in that they constitute an 
act contrary to honest market practices within the meaning of that article, and for 
an order that Vista-Life must cease that infringement, on pain of periodic penalty 
payments.  
6 By the first judgment of 6 April 2022, the President of the tribunal de l’entreprise 
francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Business Court (French-speaking)) found the 
claim to be well founded in part. He held, inter alia, that the statements 
complained of infringed Articles 10 and 14(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 and 
Article VI.104 of the Code of Economic Law, and ordered Vista-Life to cease that 
infringement, failing which it would be subject to the periodic penalty payments 
sought. 
7 Subsequently, SMB complained of four new advertisements published by Vista-
Life on 27 October, 17 and 24 November and 1 December 2022 in the magazine 
‘Le journal du Médecin’, aimed at doctors, and in the magazines ‘Le Pharmacien’ 
and ‘Pharmassistant(e)’ relating to the Vista-D3 food supplement (see pages 11 to 
15 of the order for reference, where those advertisements are reproduced). Those 
advertisements contained the following statements: 
– ‘Vista-D3 helps to prevent an increase in the risk of mortality’; 
VISTA-LIFE PHARMA 
 
3 
– ‘Vista-D3 helps in avoiding the first-pass effect in the liver and 
enzymatic degradation in the gastrointestinal tract’; 
– ‘daily better than bolus’. 
8 On 9 December 2022, SMB brought before the President of the tribunal de 
l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Business Court (French-
speaking)), sitting in proceedings for injunctive relief, an action for a declaration 
that the aforementioned statements infringe Article 10 of Regulation 
No 1924/2006, and consequently Article VI.104 of the CDE, and for an order that 
Vista-Life cease using those and any similar claims, on pain of periodic penalty 
payments. 
9 By the second judgment of 5 April 2023, the President of the tribunal de 
l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Business Court (French-
speaking)) found that the statements complained of constituted health claims 
which infringe Article 10 of Regulation No 1924/2006 and Article VI.104 of the 
CDE. He ordered Vista-Life to cease using those claims, as well as any similar 
claims, failing which it would be subject to the periodic penalty payments 
requested by SMB. 
10 Vista-Life appealed against both judgments. The cour d’appel (Court of Appeal) 
joined the two cases.  
2. Legal framework: 
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 
11 Article 1(2) provides: 
‘2. This Regulation shall apply to nutrition and health claims made in commercial 
communications, whether in the labelling, presentation or advertising of foods to 
be delivered as such to the final consumer.’ 
12 Article 2(2)(1) and (5) provides: 
‘2. The following definitions shall also apply: 
(1) “claim” means any message or representation, which is not mandatory under 
Community or national legislation, including pictorial, graphic or symbolic 
representation, in any form, which states, suggests or implies that a food has 
particular characteristics; 
(5) “health claim” means any claim that states, suggests or implies that a 
relationship exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents 
and health;’ 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-721/24 
 
4  
13 The first paragraph of Article 3 provides: 
‘Nutrition and health claims may be used in the labelling, presentation and 
advertising of foods placed on the market in the Community only if they comply 
with the provisions of this Regulation.’ 
14 Article 10(1) and (3) provides: 
‘1. Health claims shall be prohibited unless they comply with the general 
requirements in Chapter II and the specific requirements in this Chapter and are 
authorised in accordance with this Regulation and included in the lists of 
authorised claims provided for in Articles 13 and 14. 
… 
3. Reference to general, non-specific benefits of the nutrient or food for overall 
good health or health-related well-being may only be made if accompanied by a 
specific health claim included in the lists provided for in Article 13 or 14.’ 
15 Article 14(2) provides: 
‘In addition to the general requirements laid down in this Regulation and the 
specific requirements of paragraph 1, for reduction of disease risk claims the 
labelling or, if no such labelling exists, the presentation or advertising shall also 
bear a statement indicating that the disease to which the claim is referring has 
multiple risk factors and that altering one of these risk factors may or may not 
have a beneficial effect.’ 
3. Arguments of the parties and assessment of the cour d’appel (Court of 
Appeal):  
16 The statement ‘Vista-D3 helps to prevent an increase in the risk of mortality’ will 
not be included in the analysis below, since the cour d’appel (Court of Appeal) 
has ruled that it is not necessary to refer a question for a preliminary ruling in that 
regard.  
The statements ‘stable plasma levels’, ‘Vista-D3 helps in avoiding the first-pass 
effect in the liver and enzymatic degradation in the gastrointestinal tract’ and 
‘daily better than bolus’ 
17 The parties dispute whether those statements, which relate to the Vista-D3 food 
supplement, are health claims within the meaning of Article 2(2)(5) of Regulation 
No 1924/2006. 
18 It is not disputed that those statements are not included in the lists of health claims 
authorised under Regulation No 1924/2006. 
VISTA-LIFE PHARMA 
 
5 
19 The cour d’appel (Court of Appeal) points out that food supplements, which 
constitute a category of food, are subject to Regulation No 1924/2006 under 
Article 1(2) thereof and that health claims relating to food are authorised only if 
they comply with the provisions of that regulation (first paragraph of Article 3). 
20 It refers to recitals 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1924/2006 and to the judgment of the 
Court of Justice of 6 September 2012, Deutsches Weintor (C-544/10, 
EU:C:2012:526, paragraph 45), pointing out that the intention of the EU 
legislature is to ensure a high level of consumer protection, to give the consumer 
the necessary information to make choices in full knowledge of the facts, and to 
create equal conditions of competition for the food industry.  
(i) The statement ‘stable plasma levels’ 
21 That statement appears in the advertisements published in the magazines ‘Le 
Pharmacien’ and ‘Pharmassistant(e)’ in February 2021 and is included in the 
following statements: 
‘Daily administration = stable plasma levels’ and 
‘Taken daily = stable plasma levels = effective and safe’. 
22 Those statements are both preceded by the statement ‘Important for immunity: 
Maintain adequate vitamin D levels!’; the second is supplemented by an extract 
from a scientific study which states that ‘There is nothing to lose and potentially 
much to gain by recommending a vitamin D supplement of 800 to 1 000 units per 
day. This contributes to a healthy immune system, not just healthy bones and 
muscles. People who are already deficient may use a higher dose, up to 3 000 
units a day, for the first month. However, intermittent high doses of vitamin D are 
not recommended. 
23 Those advertisements also emphasise that absorption is facilitated by sublingual 
administration, with the statements ‘Sublingual administration = excellent 
absorption in all patients: chronic inflammation of the intestine, bariatric surgery, 
polymedication, elderly patients’ and ‘Sublingual administration: excellent 
absorption in all patients’; those statements are supplemented by a stylised 
drawing of a face in profile with tongue raised, accompanied by the words 
‘sublingual’, ‘< 1 min’ and ‘melts under the tongue’. 
24 The first judgment of 6 April 2022 found that ‘by those claims, Vista-Life at the 
very least suggests, if not states, that the advertised product is health related, in 
that it helps to maintain adequate vitamin D levels, which is important for 
immunity, and in that, when it is taken daily, Vista-D3 promotes stable plasma 
levels’. 
25 Vista-Life disputes that finding. It maintains that the statement ‘stable plasma 
levels’ is defined as ‘the concentration of a given substance in blood plasma’ and 
that the statement ‘daily administration = stable plasma levels’ therefore simply 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-721/24 
 
6  
states that daily administration of vitamin D helps to maintain a stable level [of] 
vitamin D in blood plasma’, so that it is intended to provide information on the 
correct dose and proper way to take its food supplement. It argues that that 
statement establishes only ‘a link between the manner, frequency, repetition or 
quantity of consumption or administration of the food, on the one hand, and the 
proper absorption of that foodstuff [and/or] its level in the blood’, which is 
insufficient to constitute a health claim. 
26 Vista-Life argues that, for a claim to qualify as a health claim, it must not only 
relate to the manner, frequency, repetition or quantity of consumption or 
administration of the food, but must also relate to the content or composition of 
the food. 
(ii) The statement ‘Vista-D3 avoids the first-pass effect in the liver and enzymatic 
degradation in the gastrointestinal tract’ 
27 That statement appears in the advertisement published on 17 November 2022 in 
the magazine ‘Le Pharmacien’ and is included in the following paragraph of a 
‘Vista-Life Pharma press release’, published in the ‘pharmaforum’ section 
immediately preceding an advertisement for the Vista-D3 product: 
‘Vitamin D, what’s new? 
… 
UNDER THE TONGUE 
The sublingual mucosa is a preferred route of administration which offers a 
number of advantages over peroral administration: faster absorption and 
avoidance of the first-pass effect in the liver and enzymatic degradation in the 
gastrointestinal tract. The advantages of a sublingual tablet go beyond improved 
absorption. It also proves popular with patients because it is easier to take and 
there are no difficulties in swallowing it. 
• VISTA-D3 sublingual tablets … With VISTA-D3 you can help your patients top 
up vitamin D quickly and effectively. Vista-D3 under the tongue, that’s smart!’. 
28 The second judgment of 5 April 2023 found that ‘Vista-Life is not merely … 
making a general statement on the advantages of one method of administering a 
product. Vista-Life is stating that the specific method of administering its product 
will be ‘good’ (‘top up vitamin D quickly and effectively; Vista-D3 under the 
tongue, that’s smart’) for the patients of the magazine’s readers. It is clearly 
establishing a link between the health of patients taking vitamin D via the 
sublingual route (‘to meet each patient’s specific needs’) and its product, the name 
of which appears several times in the body of the article and in the advertising 
image on the same page’. 
VISTA-LIFE PHARMA 
 
7 
29 Vista-Life maintains that the statement that ‘faster absorption avoids the first-pass 
effect in the liver and enzymatic degradation in the gastrointestinal tract’ refers 
only to the ‘under the tongue’ method of administration and not to the Vista-D3 
product. It argues that the disputed claim provides the reader with information on 
the method of administering the product without reference to any health effect or 
to the content or composition of the food, which is not sufficient for it to be 
regarded as a health claim. 
(iii) The statement ‘Daily better than bolus’ 
30 That statement appears in the advertisements published in Le journal du Médecin, 
Le Pharmacien and Pharmassistant(e) in October, November and December 2022 
and is accompanied by a reference to a scientific study. 
31 By that expression, Vista-Life is asserting that taking vitamin D on a daily basis is 
preferable to taking a larger dose all at once (see the word ‘bolus’, the definition 
of which, taken by the parties from a French language dictionary, is ‘a dose of 
medicine which should be administered all at once’). 
32 The second judgment of 5 April 2023 noted that that statement ‘is directly related 
to the product Vista-D3, the name of which is included in large print in the middle 
of a smiling sun, immediately followed by text introduced by two arrows which 
are the same colour as the sun and provide information relating … to the product 
presented above’. 
33 Carrying out an overall analysis of the advertisements, the tribunal de l’entreprise 
francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Business Court (French-speaking)) concludes 
that this constitutes a health claim since the claim uses the expression ‘is better’ in 
the context of the consumption of a vitamin, which necessarily relates to an effect 
on health. 
34 Vista-Life, based on reasoning similar to that put forward in relation to the 
previous statements, disputes that finding. 
Assessment of the cour d’appel (Court of Appeal): 
35 It is necessary to verify whether the three disputed claims state, suggest or imply 
that a relationship exists between the Vista-D3 food supplement and health. 
36 The Court of Justice has ruled: 
(1) since the definition of health claim provides no information as to 
whether the ‘relationship’ between a food and health must be direct or 
indirect, or as to its intensity or duration, the term ‘relationship’ must 
be understood in a broad sense (judgment of 6 September 2012, 
Deutsches Weintor, C-544/10, EU:C:2012:526, paragraph 34); 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-721/24 
 
8  
(2) ‘… it follows from the definition of “claim” in Article 2(2)(1) of 
Regulation No 1924/2006 that, for there to be a health claim within the 
meaning of that regulation, the description must imply that the food 
concerned has “particular characteristics”, that is to say, that it has a 
specific health benefit or beneficial physiological effect. Consequently, 
as the Commission has correctly observed, non-specific positive 
physiological or metabolical effects … which are merely connected in 
a general way with the intake of food, or of the kind of food 
concerned – such as the nourishment of the human organism, which is 
naturally vital for the maintenance of bodily functions – are excluded a 
priori from the scope of the term “health claim”’ (Opinion of Advocate 
General Mazák in Deutsches Weintor, C-544/10, EU:C:2012:189, 
point 44). 
37 ‘The fact that, on the one hand, the definition of nutrition and health claims covers 
messages which “state” but also those which “suggest” or “imply” that a link 
exists between the food and nutrition or health and that, on the other, the concept 
of claim covers any message and representation, implies that all the circumstances 
must be taken into account in order to assess the nature of the claim, such as the 
images and symbols used, the general presentation of the food, as well as the 
context of that presentation, etc.’ (see Sorreaux. G, Publicité et étiquetage des 
denrées alimentaires, Larcier, Brussels, 2016, p. 248, No 407). 
38 It is true that the three disputed statements suggest that a link (a ‘relationship’) 
exists between the frequency of intake and route of administration of the Vista-D3 
food supplement, on the one hand, and its assimilation by the body, on the other, 
which is claimed to be more effective.  
39 However, the general definition of ‘claim’ in Article 2(2)(1) of Regulation 
No 1924/2006 does not specify what is meant by ‘particular characteristics’. 
40 The definition of health claim in Article 2(2)(5) of that regulation does not specify 
whether the words ‘food’ or ‘one of its constituents’ cover characteristics related 
to the frequency of intake or route of administration of the food. 
41 Consequently, the cour d’appel (Court of Appeal) asks whether the frequency of 
intake and the route of administration of the food supplement are covered by those 
concepts. It is therefore necessary to refer the following question to the Court of 
Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
Is Article 2(2)(1) and (5) of Regulation No 1924/2006 to be interpreted as 
meaning that the expressions ‘particular characteristics’ and ‘a food category, a 
food or one of its constituents’ cover statements relating to the frequency of intake 
and/or the route of administration? 
VISTA-LIFE PHARMA 
 
9 
The statement ‘The solution for controlling cholesterol’ 
42 That statement appears in the advertisement published by Vista-Life in the April 
2021 issue of the magazine ‘Pharmassistant(e)’. It is connected with the presence 
of plant sterols in the VistaSterol food supplement. 
43 Vista-Life and SMB agree that that statement is to be regarded as a health claim 
within the meaning of Regulation No 1924/2006, and more specifically as a 
reduction of disease risk claim, as was also rightly held in the first judgment of 
6 April 2022. 
44 However, they disagree on whether or not that health claim complies with 
Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006. 
45 As the first judgment of 6 April 2022 rightly pointed out, the disputed 
advertisement does not contain a statement indicating that the disease to which the 
claim is referring (in this case, cardiovascular disease) has multiple risk factors 
and that altering one of these risk factors (in this case, the intake of plant sterols) 
may or may not have a beneficial effect. 
46 Vista-Life argues that an analysis of the advertising as a whole, combined with the 
fact that it was aimed at healthcare professionals, shows that it meets the 
requirement in Regulation No 1924/2006. The cour d’appel (Court of Appeal) 
noted, however, that neither the statement ‘Plant sterols, at a dose of 1.5 g to 3 g 
per day, are a safe and effective approach to early hypercholesterolaemia’ nor the 
statement ‘Cardiovascular benefit – Potential benefit in Belgium, each year 3 953 
fewer hospital admissions for cardiovascular problems’ (both of which appear in 
the advertising) is the statement referred to in Article 14(2) of Regulation 
No 1924/2006, the purpose of which is to draw the attention of consumers to the 
existence of other risk factors and to put the beneficial effect of altering just one 
of them into perspective. 
47 Since that statement is not included in the communication, the fact that the 
communication appears in a magazine intended to be read by healthcare 
professionals – thereby implying that they are in a position to ‘understand’ that 
behind the wording used there were several risk factors – is irrelevant. As the 
Court of Justice has held, ‘Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be 
interpreted as meaning that nutrition or health claims made in a commercial 
communication on a food which is intended to be delivered as such to the final 
consumer, if that communication is addressed not to the final consumer, but 
exclusively to health professionals, falls within the scope of that regulation’, and 
‘health professionals may be considered to have scientific knowledge superior to 
that of a final consumer, understood as an average consumer, who is reasonably 
well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, as stated in recital 16 
[of Regulation No 1924/2006]’. ‘However, those professionals cannot be regarded 
as being in a position to permanently have all specialised and up-to-date scientific 
knowledge necessary to evaluate each food and the nutrition or health claims used 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-721/24 
 
10  
in the labelling, the presentation or advertising of those foods. As stated by the 
Advocate General in point 49 of his Opinion, it cannot be ruled out that the health 
professionals themselves may be misled by nutrition or health claims which are 
false, deceptive, or even mendacious’ (judgment of 14 July 2016, Verband 
Sozialer Wettbewerb, C-19/15, EU:C:2016:563, and in particular paragraphs 43 
and 44). 
48 Vista-Life relies on the fact that, while not included in the disputed advertising, 
the following statement appears on the VistaSterol packaging and on the product 
leaflet: 
‘1 tablet/day helps to maintain normal cholesterol levels. 2 tablets/day lower blood 
cholesterol levels. That beneficial effect is achieved by taking 1.5 to 3 g of plant 
sterols a day. High cholesterol is a risk factor in the development of 
cardiovascular disease’. 
49 Vista-Life also states that its website contains the following information: ‘Plant 
sterols … are substances naturally present in fruit and vegetables, but in very 
small quantities. Their chemical structure is similar to the structure of cholesterol, 
but they do not have its negative properties. When a sufficient quantity of plant 
sterols is ingested, they compete, during the digestion process, with the cholesterol 
present in food. As a result, less cholesterol is absorbed into the bloodstream. The 
result is a reduction in blood cholesterol levels. High cholesterol is a risk factor in 
the development of cardiovascular disease. VistaSterol is very well tolerated 
because it acts only in the intestine and not in the bloodstream’. 
50 The cour d’appel (Court of Appeal) notes that such statements do not reproduce 
the mandatory statement referred to in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006. 
Nevertheless, those statements inform the consumer that high cholesterol levels 
are a factor in cardiovascular disease, which may suggest – by contrary 
inference – that others exist, and those statements indicate that the consumption of 
plant sterols leads to a lowering of cholesterol levels, which constitutes a 
‘beneficial effect’. 
51 The cour d’appel (Court of Appeal) recalls the settled case-law of the Court of 
Justice according to which provisions of a regulation or directive which derogate 
from a general principle established by that regulation or directive must be 
interpreted strictly (judgments of 16 March 2017, AKM, C-138/16, 
EU:C:2017:218, paragraph 37, and of 30 January 2020, Dr. Willmar Schwabe, 
C-524/18, EU:C:2020:60, paragraph 38, in particular concerning Article 10 of 
Regulation No 1924/2006). 
52 Similarly, for the purpose of interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to 
consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the 
objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 30 January 2020, 
Dr. Willmar Schwabe, C-524/18, EU:C:2020:60, paragraph 33).  
VISTA-LIFE PHARMA 
 
11 
53 The question therefore arises whether the statement ‘High cholesterol is a risk 
factor (in the development) of cardiovascular disease’ in relation to the VistaSterol 
food supplement, which appears on the packaging, on the leaflet and on the Vista-
Life website, complies with the requirement laid down in Article 14(2) of 
Regulation No 1924/2006. Accordingly, the following question must be referred 
to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
Is Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 to be interpreted as requiring the 
labelling or, if no such labelling exists, the presentation or advertising to 
reproduce verbatim the statement indicating that the disease to which the claim is 
referring ‘has multiple risk factors and … altering one of these risk factors may or 
may not have a beneficial effect’? 
54 The question also arises as to whether such a statement on the packaging, the 
product leaflet and the website, without being included in the advertising for that 
product, is sufficient to ensure compliance with Article 14(2) of Regulation 
No 1924/2006, in the light of the following clarifications. 
55 It is apparent from the case-law of the Court of Justice that: 
(1) ‘the location of … two claims on the packaging of the product … enable[s] 
an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably 
attentive and circumspect to understand the link between those claims. 
Accordingly, the concept of “accompanying” within the meaning of 
[Article 10(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006], must be interpreted as 
including both a substantive and a visual dimension’ (judgment of 
30 January 2020, Dr. Willmar Schwabe, C-524/18, EU:C:2020:60, 
paragraph 40); 
(2) ‘the visual dimension of the requirement of “accompanying”, within the 
meaning of Article 10(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006, should be understood 
as referring to the immediate perception by the average consumer, 
reasonably well informed and reasonably attentive and circumspect, of a 
direct visual link between the reference to general, non-specific health 
benefits and the specific health claim, which requires, in principle, spatial 
proximity or immediate vicinity between the reference and the claim’ 
(judgment of 30 January 2020, Dr. Willmar Schwabe, C-524/18, 
EU:C:2020:60, paragraph 47); 
(3) ‘However, in the particular case where the specific health claims do not 
appear in their entirety on the same side of the packaging as the reference 
which they are intended to substantiate due to their large size or length, it 
should be considered that the requirement for a direct visual link could be 
satisfied, exceptionally, by means of an explicit reference, such as an 
asterisk, where that ensures, in a manner that is clear and perfectly 
comprehensible to the consumer, that, in spatial terms, the content of the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-721/24 
 
12  
health claims and the reference match’ (judgment of 30 January 2020, Dr. 
Willmar Schwabe, C-524/18, EU:C:2020:60, paragraph 48). 
56 Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 requires that ‘the labelling or, if no 
such labelling exists, the presentation or advertising’ bear the mandatory 
statement. 
57 ‘Labelling’ is defined in Article 2 of Regulation No 1924/2006, by reference to 
the definition of labelling set out in Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC, as 
‘any words, particulars, trade marks, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol 
relating to a foodstuff and placed on any packaging, document, notice, label, ring 
or collar accompanying or referring to such foodstuff’, while Article 3 of 
Regulation No 1924/2006 distinguishes ‘the labelling’, ‘presentation … of foods 
placed on the market in the Community’ and ‘advertising’, stating that ‘nutrition 
and health claims may be used in the labelling, presentation and advertising of 
foods placed on the market in the Community only if they comply with the 
provisions of this Regulation’. 
58 In the present case, the disputed statement appears on the product packaging, on 
the leaflet and on Vista-Life’s website (and not in the advertising complained of). 
Accordingly, in so far as the packaging of a food and/or its leaflet and/or website 
fall(s) within the scope of the definition of ‘labelling’ within the meaning of 
Regulation No 1924/2006 and the statements which they contain are presumed to 
comply with Article 14(2) of that Regulation, the question arises as to whether the 
advertising which contains the reduction of disease risk claim is also required to 
include that statement. It is therefore necessary to refer the following question to 
the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
Is Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 to be interpreted as requiring that 
advertising which contains the reduction of disease risk claim must include the 
statement indicating that the ‘disease to which the claim is referring has multiple 
risk factors and that altering one of these risk factors may or may not have a 
beneficial effect’ where that statement appears on the packaging, leaflet and/or 
website of the product? 
4. The questions referred: 
Is Article 2(2)(1) and (5) of Regulation No 1924/2006 to be interpreted as 
meaning that the expressions ‘particular characteristics’ and ‘a food category, a 
food or one of its constituents’ cover statements relating to the frequency of intake 
and/or the route of administration of the foodstuff? 
Is Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 to be interpreted as requiring the 
labelling or, if no such labelling exists, the presentation or advertising to 
reproduce verbatim the statement indicating that the disease to which the claim is 
referring ‘has multiple risk factors and … altering one of these risk factors may or 
may not have a beneficial effect’? 
VISTA-LIFE PHARMA 
 
13 
Is Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 to be interpreted as requiring that 
advertising which contains the reduction of disease risk claim must include the 
statement indicating that ‘the disease to which the claim is referring has multiple 
risk factors and that altering one of these risk factors may or may not have a 
beneficial effect’ where that statement appears on the packaging, leaflet and/or 
website of the product?