Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:33:51.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maximum Vitamin Amounts in Food Supplements: Towards Science-based and Streamlined EU Mutual Recognition and Risk Assessment Procedures?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2018

Pieter VAN CLEYNENBREUGEL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Commentaries
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 9 , Special Issue 1: Special Issue on Judge-Made Risk Regulation and Tort Law , March 2018 , pp. 162 - 169
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Professor of European Union law, Université de Liège and visiting professor, Université Paris-Dauphine. The author can be contacted at [email protected].

References

1 See Commission interpretative communication on facilitating the access of products to the markets of other Member States: the practical application of mutual recognition [2003] OJ C265/2.

2 Weatherill, S, “Why there is no ‘principle of mutual recognitio’” in EU law (and why that matters to consumer lawyers)” in K Purnhagen and P Rott (eds), Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation. Liber amicorum for Hans Micklitz (Edward Elgar 2014) 402–403 Google Scholar.

3 See already to that extent CJEU, Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein EU:C:1979:42, para. 8.

4 See Szajkowska, A, Regulating Food Law. Risk Analysis and the Precautionary Principle as General Principles of EU Food Law (Wageningen Academic Publishers 2012) 36–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See N Coutrelis and C Mathias, “Maximum Nutrient Amounts: How to Cope with the European Commission’s Inaction. A national challenge in light of the ECJ rulings” [2011] EFFL 218.

6 Art 5(1) and (2) of Directive 2002/46 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, [2002] OJ L183/51.

7 CJEU, Case C-446/08, Solgar Vitamin’s France and Others v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l’Emploi and Others, EU:C:2010:233.

8 CJEU, Case C-672/15, Noria Distribution SARL, EU:C:2017:310, paras. 8 and 10 (hereafter Noria Distribution).

9 Noria Distribution, para. 9.

10 Opinion of AG Bobek in Case C-672/15, Noria Distribution SARL, EU:C:2017:310, para. 14 (hereafter AG’s Opinion).

11 Noria Distribution, para. 12.

12 Noria Distribution, para. 14.

13 Noria Distribution, para. 14.

14 Noria Distribution, para. 14.

15 Noria Distribution, para. 16.

16 Noria Distribution, para. 19.

17 Noria Distribution, paras. 21 and 23.

18 Noria Distribution, para. 22.

19 Noria Distribution, para. 25.

20 Noria Distribution, paras. 26 and 27.

21 Noria Distribution, paras. 16 (also reiterating that point already in the first question), 31 and 39.

22 Noria Distribution, para. 33.

23 Noria Distribution, para. 34.

24 Noria Distribution, paras. 35 and 37.

25 Noria Distribution, para. 38.

26 Noria Distribution, para. 40.

27 Noria Distribution, para. 41.

28 Noria Distribution, para. 46.

29 Noria Distribution, para. 47.

30 Noria Distribution, para. 50.

31 Noria Distribution, para. 49.

32 CJEU, Case C-95/01, Greenham and Abel, EU:C:2004:71, para. 47; CJEU, Case C-192/01, Commission v Denmark, EU:C:2003:492, para. 48; CJEU, Case C-24/00, Commission v France, C-24/00, EU:C:2004:70, para. 55; Case C-41/02, Commission v Netherlands, EU:C:2004:762, para. 49; CJEU, Case C-333/08, Commission v France, EU:C:2010:44, para. 89.

33 Noria Distribution, paras. 50–51.

34 Noria Distribution, para. 28.

35 CJEU, Case C-24/00, Commission v France, EU:C:2004:70, para 26; CJEU, Case C-95/01, Greenham and Abel, EU:C:2004:71, para. 35; CJEU, Case C-333/08, Commission v France, EU:C:2010:44, para. 81.

36 Noria Distribution, para. 22.

37 See Art 6 of Regulation 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC, [2008] OJ L218/21 and AG’s Opinion, para. 64.

38 AG’s Opinion, paras. 50 and 51.

39 AG’s Opinion, para. 55.

40 AG’s Opinion, para. 61.