Case T-296/12: Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Health Food Manufacturer’s Association and Others v Commission
Date: 2012-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: consumer information, equal treatment, food safety, foodstuff, infringement of EU law, principle of legal certainty








C_2012250EN.01001901.xml










18.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/19





Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Health Food Manufacturer’s Association and Others v Commission
(Case T-296/12)
2012/C 250/35
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: The Health Food Manufacturer’s Association (East Molesey, United Kingdom); Quest Vitamins Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom); Natures Aid Ltd (Kirkham, United Kingdom); Natuur- & gezonheidsProducten Nederland (Ermelo, Netherlands); et New Care Supplements BV (Oisterwijk, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Kelly and G. Castle, Solicitors, and P. Bogaert, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ L 136, p. 1);










—


Annul Commission Decision of 16 May 2012 adopting a list of permitted health claims and creating a list of so-called on-hold health claims that are neither rejected nor authorised by the Commission;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is illegal for the following reasons:






1.


First plea in law, that






—


the adoption of a permitted list of general function health claims while keeping certain claims under the transitional measures of Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (i.e. splitting the assessment process and adopting a partial list of claims under article 13(1)) lacks any legal basis. It further infringes the principles of good administration, legal certainty and non-discrimination for a number of reasons, including: there was no justification for the splitting of the process; the split lacked transparency; there was no consultation or adequate reasons given for the split; some claims are put ‘on-hold’ and continue to benefit from the existing transitional periods under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (despite the legal uncertainty of those transitional periods).














2.


Second plea in law, that






—


the non-inclusion of many health claims in the permitted list infringes Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 by applying improper assessment criteria, infringes the principle of good administration, legal certainty and the duty of collaboration with national food authorities and the obligation to provide adequate reasons.














3.


Third plea in law, that






—


if the pleas submitted above are not upheld, the applicants allege that the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 itself is void because of breach of the right to be heard and breach of legal certainty. The illegality of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is invoked in this application pursuant to Article 277 TFEU and supports the illegality of Regulation (EU) No 432/2012.