62023CJ0240_RES
Case C‑240/23
Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH
v
Freistaat Bayern
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht)
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2024
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture and fisheries – Organic products – Regulation (EU) 2018/848 – Organic production rules – Article 16 – Labelling – Article 30 – Terms referring to organic production – Article 33 – Organic production logo of the European Union – Conditions of use – Compliance of the product with Regulation 2018/848 – Articles 45 and 48 – Import of products from a third country for the purpose of placing them on the market within the European Union as organic products – Equivalence of the production rules of that third country with the rules of Regulation 2018/848 – Use of the third country’s organic production logo)
Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs – Regulation 2018/848 – Labelling of organic products imported from a third country which do not comply with the production rules of that regulation – Equivalence of the production rules of that third country with the rules of Regulation 2018/848 – Use of the organic production logo of the European Union and terms referring to organic production – Not permissible – Use of the organic production logo of the third country containing terms identical to those referring to EU organic production – Whether permissible
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2018/848, Arts 16(1), 30(1) and (2), 33(1), 45(1)(b)(iii), 48(1) and Annex II, Part IV, point 2.2.2(f))
(see paragraphs 51, 62-64, 66-68, 75, 76, 79, 84-85, operative part)
Résumé
In a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany), the Court of Justice clarifies the conditions for the use of the organic production logo of the European Union in the case of imports of products containing, in addition to organic products, vitamins and minerals not coming from organic farming.
Herbaria produces a beverage called ‘Blutquick’, comprising a mixture of fruit juice and organically produced herbs. Non-plant vitamins and ferrous gluconate are added to that beverage, which is marketed as a food supplement. The packaging shows the organic production logo of the European Union, the national organic label and a reference to the fact that the ingredients come from ‘controlled organic agriculture’.
Since the Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (Bavarian Regional Office for Agriculture, Germany) took the view that that beverage did not comply with Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation No 889/2008 (
1
) in that it contains non-plant vitamins and minerals whereas this was not legally required, (
2
) it ordered Herbaria to remove from the labelling, advertising and marketing of Blutquick the reference to organic production protected under Article 23 of Regulation No 834/2007. (
3
)
Herbaria challenged that decision before the referring court. Before that court, Herbaria no longer denies that its product does not comply with EU law (
4
) and therefore no longer challenges the prohibition on the use by that product of the organic production logo of the European Union, the national organic label and terms referring to organic production. However, Herbaria submits that, under Regulation No 2018/848, (
5
) a product competing with Blutquick, imported from the United States of America, is not subject to such a prohibition, even though it does not comply with EU rules of production, which would constitute unequal treatment in breach of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In those circumstances, the referring court asked the Court, inter alia, whether Regulation 2018/848 allows a product imported from a third country under the conditions laid down by that regulation to bear the organic production logo of the European Union and terms referring to organic production, even though it does not comply in every respect with the requirements laid down by that regulation.
In its Grand Chamber judgment, the Court interprets Regulation 2018/848 (
6
) as meaning that a product imported from a third country, whose production rules have been recognised as equivalent to those laid down by that regulation for the placing on the market of a product in the European Union as an organic product, may not use for its labelling either the organic production logo of the European Union or, in principle, terms referring to organic production, where it contains minerals and vitamins of non-plant origin, which are not legally required, and does not therefore meet the requirements of Article 16(1) of that regulation. The organic production logo of that third country may, however, be used in the European Union for such a product, even where that logo contains terms referring to organic production, within the meaning of Article 30(1) of Regulation 2018/848.
Findings of the Court
The Court considers that the wording of Article 30(2) and Article 33(1) of Regulation 2018/848 tends to indicate that the organic production logo of the European Union and terms referring to organic production may be used for organic products, whether they are manufactured in the European Union or imported from a third country for the purpose of being placed on the market in the European Union as organic products, only in so far as they comply with the requirements laid down in that regulation.
That literal interpretation is supported by the context in which those provisions are to be found. Indeed, Regulation 2018/848 introduces a distinction between products manufactured in the European Union (
7
) and those imported from a third country for the purposes of their being placed on the market in the European Union as organic products, which must meet the conditions set out in Article 45 of Regulation 2018/848 and, in particular, one of the three conditions laid down in Article 45(1)(b)(i) to (iii) of that regulation. Those three conditions relate, respectively, to the situation in which the imported products comply with Chapters II, III and IV of that regulation (the situation referred to in point (i)), that in which they are governed by equivalent rules in their country of origin, recognised as such under a trade agreement (situation referred to in point (ii)), and, lastly, the situation in which those rules are recognised as equivalent under a unilateral EU measure (situation referred to in point (iii)).
Of those three conditions, only that referred to in point (i) requires the imported product to comply with the provisions of Chapters II, III and IV of that regulation. Consequently, a product corresponding to the situation referred to in Article 45(1)(b)(iii) of Regulation 2018/848, (
8
) although not complying with all the production rules laid down in Chapter III of that regulation, may be placed on the market in the European Union as an organic product, provided that it is a product from a third country whose production rules in force have been considered by the European Union to be equivalent to those set out in Chapter III, and it complies with those rules. The Court states that the concept of ‘equivalence’ of the production rules of the third country concerned presupposes that they pursue the same objectives and observe the same principles, by applying rules which ensure the same level of assurance of conformity as that required by the EU legislation in respect of products manufactured in the European Union. (
9
)
By contrast, no provision of Regulation 2018/848 permits the use of the organic production logo of the European Union and terms referring to organic production for products from third countries recognised for the purposes of equivalence, in so far as, although they may be imported into the European Union pursuant to Article 45(1)(b)(iii) of that regulation, those products do not, however, comply with the production rules laid down in that regulation.
That interpretation is moreover confirmed by the objectives of Regulation 2018/848, which aims in particular, at maintaining consumer confidence in products labelled as organic products, by ensuring that consumers are informed, in a clear and unambiguous manner, of the fact that the product on which the organic production logo of the European Union or terms referring to organic production appear is fully compliant with all the requirements laid down by Regulation 2018/848, and not merely with rules equivalent to that regulation.
However, the possibility of using the organic production logo of the European Union or terms referring to organic production, both for products which have been manufactured in the European Union or in third countries in compliance with the production rules laid down in Regulation 2018/848 and for products which have been manufactured in third countries according to standards merely equivalent to those production rules, does not enable the consumer to know whether an imported product complies with all the production rules of Regulation 2018/848 or whether it complies merely with production rules of the third country from which it is imported that are equivalent to the production rules of that regulation.
In that regard, the fact that, under Article 32(2) of Regulation 2018/848, where the organic production logo of the European Union is used on a product, an indication must be added specifying the place where the agricultural raw materials of which the product is composed have been farmed, is not sufficient to dispel any ambiguity for the consumer.
That said, in order to facilitate trade with third countries and to ensure the effectiveness of Article 45(1)(b)(iii) of Regulation 2018/848, which confers on the European Commission the power to recognise that rules of a third country are equivalent to the rules of that regulation, products imported under that provision, which have access to the EU market as organic products, must be able to use the organic production logo of the third country from which they come, even where that logo contains terms identical to those referring to organic production, within the meaning of Article 30(1) of that regulation and Annex IV thereto.
(
1
)	Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2008 L 250, p. 1).
(
2
)	The addition of vitamins and minerals to processed products bearing the term ‘organic’ is permitted, under the applicable regulations, only if their use is legally required.
(
3
)	Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1).
(
4
)	In the present case, Article 16(1) of Regulation 2018/848, read in conjunction with point 2.2.2(f)(i) of Part IV of Annex II thereto, which, in essence, replaced Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation No 889/2008.
(
5
)	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).
(
6
)	In the present case, Article 30(2) and Article 33(1) of Regulation No 2018/848.
(
7
)	Which must comply with the detailed production rules set out in Part IV of Annex II to Regulation 2018/848 and in any implementing act referred to in Article 16(3) thereof.
(
8
)	That is the situation referred to by the referring court.
(
9
)	Article 3(64) of Regulation 2018/848.