CELEX: 62015TN0100
Language: en
Date: 2015-02-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-100/15: Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Dextro Energy v Commission

11.5.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 155/31
            
         Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Dextro Energy v Commission
   (Case T-100/15)
   (2015/C 155/37)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: Rechtsanwälte M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul 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);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1924/2006 (1)
   
   The applicant claims that there are no grounds to justify the refusal to authorise the five health claims which have nonetheless received five favourable scientific assessments from the European Food Safety Authority. Those five health claims neither infringe generally accepted nutrition and health principles, nor convey a conflicting and confusing message to consumers. They are also neither ambiguous nor misleading.
   Second plea in law, alleging a lack of proportionality
   The applicant claims that, in view of the favourable opinion of the European Food Safety Authority on the applicant’s five health claims, the absolute ban on advertising resulting from the rejection of those health claims was disproportionate.
   Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality
   The applicant submits that the defendant has refused to authorise scientifically uncontested health claims despite having authorised similar health claims in the past.
   Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to provide sufficient grounds
   Finally, the applicant claims that the contested regulation does not provide sufficient grounds; it cannot be discerned whether the defendant took into account the arguments of the applicant and of the public, nor whether it even carried out an independent appraisal of those arguments.
   
      (1)  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).