Case T-212/06, Bowland Dairy Products Ltd v. Commission

The Commission, as co-ordinator of the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), is not entitled to refuse the circulation of a supplementary notification made by a Member State to the system, regardless of its own reservations about the content of that notification. This is in accordance with the non-hierarchical nature of RASFF as a form of risk information exchange envisaged in Article 50 of Regulation 178/2002. However, as the Commission itself is also a member of this network it may legitimately make notifications to the system which directly conflict with notifications made by Member States (author's headnote).

Case T-429/05 Artegodan GmbH v. Commission

The infringement of Article 11 of Directive 65/65/EEC and of the proportionality principle are not per se sufficient to require the Commission to provide the applicant with compensation for the damages suffered if they are the result of a decision on the withdrawal of a marketing authorisation should this authorisation be deemed illegitimate and subsequently annulled by the Court (author's headnote).

Case C-160/09 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon

Article 4 of the Cooperation Agreement concluded between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof – Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela – of the other part, approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984, is not such as to confer on individuals rights upon which they might rely before the courts of a Member State (official headnote).

Case C-333/08 Commission v. French Republic ‘processing aids’ [2010] ECR-0000

French prior authorisation scheme for processing aids in food production infringes upon Article 34 TFEU

1. 1. A prior authorisation scheme not complying with the principle of proportionality, infringes upon Article 34 TFEU.

2. 2. A correct application of the precautionary principle presupposes, first, identification of the potentially negative consequences for health, and, secondly, a comprehensive assessment of the risk to health based on the most reliable scientific data available and the most recent results of international research.

3. 3. A Member State cannot justify a systematic and untargeted prior authorisation scheme by pleading the impossibility of carrying out more exhaustive prior examinations by reason of the considerable quantity of products which may be used or by reason of the fact that manufacturing processes are constantly changing. (author's headnotes)

Case T-16/04, Arcelor SA v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union nyr

1. 1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that, in adopting the contested Directive, the Community legislature acted unlawfully or committed a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law designed to confer rights on the applicant.

2. 2. Consequently, the application for damages must be rejected without there being any need to rule on the other conditions giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community or on the plea of inadmissibility raised raised by the Council in relation to certain annexes to the reply. (official headnotes)

The Book Reviews section will introduce you to the latest and most interesting books on a wide range of topics pertaining to the law and policy of risk regulation. EJRR Book Reviews will strive to be present in every edition and will accept reviews from all disciplines. For further information on the submission of reviews please contact the Book Reviews Editor at david.hornsby@wits.ac.za.