Case C-442/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany)) — Karl Heinz Bablok and Others v Freistaat Bayern (Genetically modified food for human consumption — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Articles 2 to 4 and 12 — Directive 2001/18/EC — Article 2 — Directive 2000/13/EC — Article 6 — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Article 2 — Apicultural products — Presence of pollen from genetically modified plants — Consequences — Placing on the market — Definition of organism and food for human consumption containing ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms )
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: apiculture, foodstuff, genetically modified organism, marketing








C_2011311EN.01000702.xml










22.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/7





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany)) — Karl Heinz Bablok and Others v Freistaat Bayern
(Case C-442/09) (1)

(Genetically modified food for human consumption - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Articles 2 to 4 and 12 - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 2 - Directive 2000/13/EC - Article 6 - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 2 - Apicultural products - Presence of pollen from genetically modified plants - Consequences - Placing on the market - Definition of ‘organism’ and ‘food for human consumption containing ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms’)
2011/C 311/09
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Karl Heinz Bablok, Stefan Egeter, Josef Stegmeier, Karlhans Müller, Barbara Klimesch

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Intervening parties: Monsanto Technology LLC, Monsanto Agrar Deutschland GmbH, Monsanto Europe SA/NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 2.5 and 2.10, Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1) — Unintentional and adventitious presence in apicultural products of pollen from genetically modified plants which is no longer capable of reproducing — Possible repercussions on the procedure for placing such products on the market — Concept of ‘genetically modified organism’ and ‘produced from GMOs’

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The concept of a genetically modified organism within the meaning of Article 2.5 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed must be interpreted as meaning that a substance such as pollen derived from a variety of genetically modified maize, which has lost its ability to reproduce and is totally incapable of transferring the genetic material which it contains, no longer comes within the scope of that concept.










2.


Article 2.1, 2.10 and 2.13 and Article 3(1)(c) of Regulation No 1829/2003, Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, and Article 6(4)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that, when a substance such as pollen containing genetically modified DNA and genetically modified proteins is not liable to be considered as a genetically modified organism, products such as honey and food supplements containing such a substance constitute ‘food … containing ingredients produced from [genetically modified organisms]’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of Regulation No 1829/2003. That classification may be made irrespective of whether contamination by the substance in question was intentional or adventitious.










3.


Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Regulation No 1829/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, when they imply an obligation to authorise and supervise a foodstuff, a tolerance threshold such as that provided for in respect of labelling in Article 12(2) of that regulation may not be applied to that obligation by analogy.






(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.