Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:59:45.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumers May be Misled Despite the List of Ingredients Being Displayed on the Packaging of a Foodstuff

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Elisabet Ruiz Cairo
Elisabet Ruiz Cairo*
Affiliation:
College of Europe, Bruges
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Case C-195/14, Teek anne ECLI:EU:C:2015:361, not yet published

The labelling of a foodstuff must not mislead the consumer by giving the impression that a particular ingredient is present, even though it is not in fact present. The list of ingredients may, even though correct and comprehensive, not be capable of correcting sufficiently the consumer's erroneous or misleading impression that stems from such labelling (official headnote)

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 454 - 457
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015

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.)

References

1 Emphasis added.

2 Case C-195/14, Teekanne ECLI:EU:C:2015:361, not yet published (‘Teekanne’), at para. 21.

3 Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, pp. 1-390 (‘TFEU’).

4 Ibid, Art. 267.

5 Teekanne, supra note 3, at para. 30.

6 Ibid,, at para. 31.

7 Ibid. at para. 32.

8 Ibid. at para 28.

9 Ibid., at para. 36.

10 Ibid., at para. 37.

11 Case C-51/94 Commission v Germany ECLI: EU: C:1995:352, I-03599 (‘Commission v Germany’).

12 Case C-465/98 Darbo ECLI:EU:C:2000:184, I-02297 ('Darbo’).

13 Ibid., at para 22.

14 Teekanne, supra note 3, at para. 38.

15 Ibid., at para. 40.

16 Ibid., at para. 44.

17 Commission v Germany, supra note 12, at para. 34.

18 Ibid., at para. 36.

19 Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, Urteil v.20.10.2011 –Az.: 6 U 40/11, at para. 11 in Ignacio Carreño, “German Court orders change to nutrition labelling on Nutella due to its misleading nature”, 3(1) European Journal of Risk Regulation (2012), pp. 91 et sqq., at p. 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The judgment is available on the Internet at http://www.lareda.hessenrecht.hessen.de

20 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, OJ 2011 L 304, pp. 18-63 (“Regulation 1169/2011”).

21 Court of Justice of the European Union Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings, OJ 2012 C 338, pp. 1-6.

22 Ibid., at para. 7.

23 Case C-120/78, Rewe-Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein ECLI:EU:C:1979:42 1979/00649 (“Cassis de Dijon”).

24 Case C-446/07, Severi ECLI:EU:C:2009:530 I-08041, at para. 62.

25 Teekanne, supra note 3, at para. 43.

26 MacMaoláin, Caoimhin, “Waiter! There's a beetle in my soup. Yes, Sir, that's E120: disparities between actual individual behavior and regulating food labelling for the average consumer in EU law”, 45(4) Common Market Law Review (2008), pp. 1147 et sqq., p. 1165.Google Scholar