Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co.KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG.
Date: 2020-01-30
28


In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 July 2019, Federal Express Corporation Deutsche Niederlassung, C‑26/18, EU:C:2019:579, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
29


That presumption of relevance cannot be rebutted by the simple fact that one of the parties to the main proceedings contests certain facts, the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine and on which the delimitation of the subject matter of those proceedings depends (judgment of 7 June 2007, van der Weerd and Others, C‑222/05 to C‑225/05, EU:C:2007:318, paragraph 23).
30


In addition, to alter the substance of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, or to answer additional questions mentioned by the parties, would be incompatible with the Court’s duty to ensure that the governments of the Member States and the parties concerned are given the opportunity to submit observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, bearing in mind the fact that, under that provision, only the decision of the referring court is notified to the interested parties (judgment of 16 October 2014, Welmory, C‑605/12, EU:C:2014:2298, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
33


According to the Court’s settled case-law, for the purpose of interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, to that effect, judgments of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C‑414/16, EU:C:2018:257, paragraph 44, and of 30 January 2019, Planta Tabak, C‑220/17, EU:C:2019:76, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited).
35


Secondly, as regards the objectives of Regulation No 1924/2006, it should be recalled that, under Article 1(1) of that Regulation, its purpose is to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market while providing a high level of consumer protection. Health protection is among the principal aims of the regulation. In order to attain that objective, it is necessary, in particular, to give the consumer the necessary information to make a choice in full knowledge of the facts (judgment of 14 July 2016, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb, C‑19/15, EU:C:2016:563, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). In that regard, it should also be recalled that recital 16 of Regulation 1924/2006 states that it is important that claims on foods be understood by the consumer and that all consumers should be protected against misleading claims, specifying that that regulation takes as a benchmark, inter alia, the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors.
38


Moreover, it follows from a systemic reading of Article 10 of Regulation No 1924/2006 that paragraph 3 thereof establishes a derogation from the principle established in paragraph 1, so that, according to the Court’s consistent case-law, the requirement for accompanying established in paragraph 3 must be strictly interpreted (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 March 2017, AKM, C‑138/16, EU:C:2017:218, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). Article 10(3) of that regulation thus introduces a distinction between two categories of health claims, namely, on the one hand, the specific health claim included in the lists in question in accordance with the principle laid down in Article 10(1) of that regulation and, on the other hand, the ‘general’ health claim constituting a reference to those general, non-specific benefits which must be accompanied by a health claim appearing on those same lists.