Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:310
Date: 2026-04-16
Language of the case: Dutch

Summary C-295/25 – 1 
Case C-295/25 
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: 
23 April 2025 
Referring court: 
Raad van State (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
9 April 2025 
Applicant: 
Lima BV 
Defendant: 
Vlaams Gewest 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action of 15 January 2024 for annulment of the decision of the Vlaamse overheid, 
Departement Landbouw en Visserij (Flemish Government, Department of 
Agriculture and Fisheries) of 18 December 2023, prohibiting the use of powder 
certified as organic, obtained from cleaned, dried, and ground Lithothamnium 
calcareum alga sediment, in organic plant-based beverages 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Art. 267 TFEU – Interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2018/848: Does that directive 
prohibit the use, in the processing of organic food, of powder certified as organic 
from cleaned, ground and dried Lithothamnium calcareum alga sediment? 
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Are points 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of Part IV of Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/848, 
read in conjunction with Article 7(b) and (c) of that Regulation, to be interpreted 
EN
: 
 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-295/25 
 
2  
as meaning that in the processing of organic food for normal consumption, 
powder certified as organic obtained from cleaned, ground and dried 
Lithothamnium calcareum alga sediment, which is naturally rich in calcium 
carbonate, falls within Point 2.2.2(f)(i) of Part IV of Annex II to Regulation (EU) 
2018/848 and is therefore prohibited, as the use of calcium in food for normal 
consumption is not directly legally required? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and 
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (OJ 2018, L 150, p. 1 
‘Regulation 2018/848’): Articles 7, 15, 16 and 24 and Parts III and IV of Annex II 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1165 of 15 July 2021 
authorising certain products and substances for use in organic production and 
establishing their lists (OJ 2021 L 253, p. 13, ‘Implementing Regulation 
2021/1165’): Recital 14 and Articles 6 and 7 
Judgment of 29 April 2021, Natumi, C-815/19, EU:C:2021:336 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreet van 28 juni 2013 betreffende het landbouw- en visserijbeleid (Decree of 
28 June 2013 on agricultural and fisheries policy): Articles 4(1)(i) and 72 
Besluit van de Vlaamse regering van 29 oktober 2021 over de biologische 
productie en de etikettering van biologische producten (Decree of the Flemish 
Government of 29 October 2021 on organic production and the labelling of 
organic products): Article 65 
Succinct presentation of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 The applicant is a company under Belgian law specialising in the distribution of 
organic plant-based foods on the European market, including organic rice and oat 
drinks. 
2 The inspection body found that in two organic products calcium-containing 
residues of the Lithothamnium calcareum alga (‘Lithothamnium’) are used. 
3 According to the inspection body, that use cannot be accepted because it 
constitutes an enrichment of organic products contrary to point 2.2.2(f)(i) of Part 
IV of Annex II to Regulation 2018/848. The inspection body refers to the Natumi 
judgment, in which the Court stated that powder obtained from the cleaned, dried 
and ground sediments of Lithothamnium calcareum alga must not be used as a 
non-organic ingredient of agricultural origin in the processing of organic 
LIMA 
 
3 
foodstuffs, such as rice- and soya-based organic drinks, for the purpose of their 
enrichment with calcium. The inspection body also draws attention to the 
Commission’s FAQ on Organic Rules of 30 November 2023 (‘FAQ’) stating that 
the main component of Lithothamnium is calcium carbonate and its main function 
in processed foods corresponds to the addition of calcium, and that calcium 
carbonate is a mineral, so its use in organic production requires an authorisation 
pursuant to point 2.2.2 of Part IV of Annex II to Regulation 2018/848. 
Consequently, powder from cleaned, dried and ground sediments of 
Lithothamnium is not to be processed in the organic foodstuffs concerned (plant-
based drinks). Whether the powder is considered to be an ingredient of 
agricultural origin and certified as organic is irrelevant: it is used for calcium 
enrichment and the addition of calcium as a mineral additive is not authorised in 
organic processing. 
4 The applicant lodged an internal appeal against that decision with the inspection 
body, which, however, upheld its original decision. 
5 On 30 May 2023, the applicant lodged an administrative complaint with the 
Vlaamse overheid, Departement Landbouw en Visserij. 
6 On 18 December 2023, the Departement Landbouw en Visserij decided that 
adding the powder obtained from cleaned, dried and ground sediments of 
Lithothamnium alga, whether or not certified as organic, to organic plant-based 
drinks is not permitted, since the product in question is used as calcium, which is a 
mineral; enrichment of the foodstuffs in question with calcium is not permitted 
under point 2.2.2(f)(i) of Part IV of Annex II to Regulation 2018/848. The 
Departement Landbouw en Visserij refers to the Natumi judgement. Although that 
judgement concerned a non-organic ingredient of agricultural origin, the 
Departement is of the view that the same reasoning applies to the use of organic 
alga. A different assessment would have the consequence that the strict 
authorisation rules for minerals could be circumvented. 
7 On 15 January 2024, the applicant brought an action before the referring court for 
annulment of the decision of 18 December 2023. 
Principal arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
8 First, the applicant submits that the Lithothamnium powder used by it should be 
regarded as an organic agricultural ingredient within the meaning of Article 7(a) 
of Regulation 2018/848 and not as a mineral. The Court of Justice classified the 
ingredient that was the subject of the Natumi judgment as an ingredient of 
agricultural origin. That categorisation excludes classification as a mineral. 
According to the applicant, that also applies to the Lithothamnium ingredient it 
uses, although its product is certified as organic, which was not the case in the 
facts in Natumi. The applicant also claims that the European Commission’s FAQ 
list is not binding and contradicts the binding classification of the Court of Justice. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-295/25 
 
4  
9 According to the defendant, the applicant misinterprets the Natumi judgement, in 
which the powder was functionally classified as calcium. The Court of Justice 
ruled that, in addition to the regime for agricultural ingredients, there are also 
separate authorisation schemes for additives, processing aids, minerals, vitamins, 
etc. According to the defendant, the Court concludes clearly that the rules on the 
use of non-organic ingredients of agricultural origin are not applicable if the 
product in question is used as a product or substance falling within the scope of 
another authorisation scheme. Due to the very high calcium content, the Court 
functionally classifies Lithothamnium powder as calcium and therefore as a 
mineral. This mineral is not permitted to be used in organic food. 
10 The defendant also refers to the Commission’s FAQs. 
11 Second, the applicant submits that the conditions applicable to non-organic 
ingredients of agricultural origin do not apply to the use of organic ingredients of 
agricultural origin. Different rules apply to organic and non-organic ingredients, 
which fall within the scope of a strict authorisation scheme. The Natumi 
judgement concerns only non-organic Lithothamnium powder. According to the 
applicant, the Court of Justice ruled that Lithothamnium powder not certified as 
organic is not be used in organic foodstuffs because it does not fulfil the 
conditions for non-organic ingredients. The Court’s reasoning cannot be applied 
by analogy to Lithothamnium powder certified as organic. 
12 In response, the defendant submits that the interpretation of the Court of Justice in 
the Natumi judgement does apply to the use of the organic variant of the alga. The 
defendant refers to a recent letter from the European Commission Ares 
(2023)8716126 of 19 December 2023, which reaffirms that point 2.2.2(f)(i) of 
Part IV of Annex II to Regulation 2018/848 strictly restricts the use of minerals in 
organic food, irrespective of the origin of the accompanying product and 
irrespective of whether it comes from an organic or non-organic ingredient. 
According to the applicant, however, a corresponding application is not possible, 
as the legal schemes for both types of ingredients differ significantly. It also 
argues that the European Commission’s letter Ares (2023)8716126 is not binding. 
13 Third, the applicant submits that Regulation 2018/848 allows organic ingredients 
to be incorporated into organic food irrespective of their nutritional profile. The 
powder in question is certified as organic under the wild algae scheme and is an 
ingredient of agricultural origin within the meaning of Regulation 2018/848. The 
fact that it is a calcium-rich ingredient does not change this. 
14 The defendant replies that the applicant relies exclusively on Article 7(a) of 
Regulation 2018/848 (privilege for organic ingredients) and ignores the specific 
principles in Article 7(b) and (c). Those principles were given concrete expression 
in exhaustive lists and prohibition provisions. On the basis of Article 7(b), 
Implementing Regulation 2021/1165 established an exhaustive list of authorised 
food additives and processing aids in organic processing. Part A of Annex V to 
that implementing regulation expressly provides that organic products are not to 
LIMA 
 
5 
be enriched with calcium. According to the defendant, the addition of the powder 
constitutes an enrichment with calcium. The defendant also refers to Article 7(c), 
according to which substances or processes which might be misleading to the 
consumer as regards the ‘true nature’ of an organic product are prohibited. 
Lithothamnium powder is added precisely because of its high calcium content to 
make plant-based rice and oat drinks resemble cow’s milk. According to the 
defendant, this is misleading. 
15 The applicant replies that, in its cereal-based beverages, calcium does not 
originate from added isolated calcium carbonate (E 170), but from an ingredient 
certified as organic whose calcium content is only approximately 30%. Since this 
algal ingredient is not a food additive, a non-organic ingredient or a micronutrient 
or a processing aid, Article 7(b) does not apply. Furthermore, there is no 
suggestion that the beverage has the same properties as cow’s milk, so that 
consumers will not be misled within the meaning of Article 7(c) either. 
16 In the alternative, the applicant submits that there is uncertainty as to the scope of 
point 2.2.2 of Part IV of Annex II to Regulation 2018/848 and that a question 
arises which has not yet been answered by the Natumi judgement, which relates 
exclusively to Lithothamnium powder not certified as organic. The applicant 
therefore requests the referring court to refer a question to the Court of Justice for 
a preliminary ruling. 
Brief summary of the basis for the reference 
17 The referring court formulates the key question to be answered as follows: Should 
Lithothamnium powder certified as organic be classified as an organic ingredient 
of agricultural origin (the applicant’s position) or does the strict regime for 
minerals provided for in point 2.2.2(f) of Part IV of Annex II to Regulation 
2018/848 apply irrespective of organic origin (the defendant’s position)? 
18 The referring court points out that the Natumi judgment relates exclusively to non-
organic Lithothamnium powder under former Regulations 837/2007 and 
889/2008. The Court of Justice prohibited the use of that powder as a non-organic 
ingredient of agricultural origin on the ground that it could circumvent the ban on 
calcium enrichment. However, the present case concerns Lithothamnium powder 
certified as organic. The referring court is of the view that it is not clear that the 
interpretation adopted by the Court of Justice in Natumi in relation to Regulation 
889/2008 can simply be applied mutatis mutandis in the present case. 
Furthermore, in that judgment, the Court ruled on the classification of the (non-
organic variant of the) ingredient at issue in the light of Regulation 889/2008 
applicable then, and has not yet ruled on the classification of Lithothamnium 
powder (certified as organic) in the light of Regulation 2018/848. 
19 The referring court shares the applicant’s view that the FAQs are not binding and 
that only the Court of Justice can give a binding interpretation of provisions of EU 
law pursuant to Article 267 TFEU. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-295/25 
 
6  
20 In view of the various arguments, the changes in the law that have occurred since 
the Natumi judgment and the fact that the Court has not yet ruled on the use of 
Lithothamnium powder certified as organic under Regulation 2018/848, the 
referring court is of the view that the correct interpretation of EU law is not so 
obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt and refers the question set 
out above to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.