CELEX: 62015CA0672
Language: en
Date: 2017-04-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-672/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan — France) — Criminal proceedings against Noria Distribution SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/46/EC — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements — Vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements — Maximum amounts — Competence of the Member States — National legislation setting those amounts — Mutual recognition — Absence — Conditions to be respected and factors to be taken into consideration when setting those amounts)

26.6.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 202/5
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan — France) — Criminal proceedings against Noria Distribution SARL
   (Case C-672/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/46/EC - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements - Vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements - Maximum amounts - Competence of the Member States - National legislation setting those amounts - Mutual recognition - Absence - Conditions to be respected and factors to be taken into consideration when setting those amounts))
   (2017/C 202/07)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan
   
      Party in the main proceedings
   
   Noria Distribution SARL,
   
      Intervening parties: Procureur de la République, Union fédérale des consommateurs des P.O (Que choisir),
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The provisions of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not provide for a procedure for the placing on the market of that Member State of food supplements whose content in nutrients exceeds the maximum daily doses set by that legislation and which are lawfully manufactured or marketed in another Member state.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The provisions of Directive 2002/46 and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as meaning that the maximum amounts referred to in Article 5 of that directive must be set on a case-by-case basis and taking into account all of the elements in Article 5(1) and (2) of that directive, in particular of the upper safe levels established, with respect to the nutrients at issue, after a comprehensive scientific assessment of the risks for public health, based not on general or hypothetical considerations, but on relevant scientific data. It is for the referring court to assess whether the method for the setting of those amounts at issue in the main proceedings complies with those requirements.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The provisions of Directive 2002/46 and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as precluding that the scientific assessment of the risks referred to in Article 5(1)(a) of that directive, prior to the establishment of upper safe limits which must in particular be taken into account in order to set the maximum amounts referred to in Article 5 thereof, be carried out solely on the basis of national scientific opinions, even though recent international scientific opinions concluding in favour of the possibility of setting higher limits are also available on the date of the adoption of the measure at issue.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.