Case T-489/24: Action brought on 20 September 2024 – Beneo v Commission
Date: 2024-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: advertising, consumer information, equal treatment, food inspection, food safety, food supplement, health control, labelling, market approval, organic chemical








C_202406945EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6945


25.11.2024






Action brought on 20 September 2024 – Beneo v Commission


(Case T-489/24)

(C/2024/6945)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Beneo GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2105 of 31 July 2024 refusing to authorise a health claim made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health. (1)











—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: Regulation (EC) 2024/2105 infringes Article 18(4) of Regulation 1924/2006 (2)

The defendant rejected the application for authorisation of a health claim made by the applicant, even though the European Food Safety Authority had issued a favourable scientific assessment. There were no grounds justifying the refusal to authorise the claim. The claim does not run counter to generally accepted nutritional and health principles, nor does it send a contradictory and confusing signal to consumers, nor is it ambiguous or misleading. In addition, the defendant failed to examine the specific conditions of use suggested by the applicant in relation to the claim and it failed to take account of the fact that the suggested additional statements could have made the message less confusing for consumers. Lastly, the situation to be taken into account was not comparable with that on which Regulation (EU) 2015/8 (3) is based.










2.


Second plea in law: Regulation (EU) 2024/2105 is, in its entirety, disproportionate
Given the positive opinion of the European Food Safety Authority regarding the defendant’s health claim, the total advertising prohibition which applies on account of the rejection of the claim is disproportionate.










3.


Third plea in law: Regulation (EU) 2024/2105 breaches the principle of equality
The defendant refused to authorise the scientifically undisputed health claim, even though it has in the past granted authorisation for similar claims, including for isomaltulose.










4.


Fourth plea in law : Regulation (EU) 2024/2105 infringes the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
The contested regulation does not contain a sufficient statement of reasons. It is not recognisable that the defendant has taken into account the defendant’s arguments or that it has carried out an independent examination of those arguments.






(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2105 of 31 July 2024 refusing to authorise a health claim made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ L 2024/2105).

(2)  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 (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/8 of 6 January 2015 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2015 L 3, p. 6).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6945/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)