Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T22:35:33.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ban on Designating Plant Products as Dairy: Between Market Regulation and Over-Protection of the Consumer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2018

Daniele PISANELLO  and
Luchino FERRARIS
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. 170 - 176
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

*

Food Lawyer and Managing Partner at LEX Alimentaria, Italy – [email protected].

**

Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa – l.[email protected].

References

1 Case C-422/16, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v TofuTown.com GmbH (TofuTown) [2017].

2 Art 78(2) and Annex VII, Part III, to European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) 922/72, (EEC) 234/79, (EC) 1037/2001 and (EC) 1234/2007.

3 TofuTown, supra note 1, para. 53.

4 The product must be listed in Annex I to Commission Decision 2010/791/EU listing the products referred to in the second subparagraph of point III(1) of Annex XII to Council Regulation (EC) 1234/2007.

5 The discipline of the “name” of the food is laid down in Art 17, para. 2 European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.

6 The action was brought before the Landgericht Trier (Regional Court, Trier, Germany), relying on an infringement of para 3a of the Law on Unfair Competition, in conjunction with Annex VII, Part III, points 1 and 2, and Art 78 of Regulation No 1308/2013. The German Law against Unfair Competition, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, provides in para 3a: “A person who infringes a statutory provision that is also intended to regulate market behaviour in the interests of market participants shall be regarded as acting unfairly [where] the infringement is liable to have a perceptible adverse effect on the interests of consumers, other market participants or competitors”.

7 Case C-101/98, Union Deutsche Lebensmittelwerke GmbH v Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV. (UDL) [1999] ECR I-08841.

8 Art 78 of Regulation No 1308/2013, entitled “Definitions, designations and sales descriptions for certain sectors and products”, provides:

“1. In addition, where relevant, to the applicable marketing standards, the definitions, designations and sales descriptions provided for in Annex VII shall apply to the following sectors or products:

[…]

(c) milk and milk products intended for human consumption;

[…]

2. The definitions, designations or sales descriptions provided for in Annex VII may be used in the Union only for the marketing of a product which conforms to the corresponding requirements laid down in that Annex.

3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts … concerning the modifications, derogations or exemptions to the definitions and sales descriptions provided for in Annex VII. Those delegated acts shall be strictly limited to demonstrated needs resulting from evolving consumer demand, technical progress or the need for product innovation.

[…]

5. In order to take into account the expectations of consumers and the evolution of the milk products market, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts […] to specify the milk products in respect of which the animal species from which the milk originates is to be stated, if it is not bovine, and to lay down the necessary rules”.

9 TofuTown, supra, note 1, para. 40.

10 UDL, supra, note 7.

11 TofuTown, supra, note 1, para. 46.

12 ibid, para. 43.

13 ibid, para. 48.

14 ibid.

15 ibid, para. 49, and case law referred to therein.

16 ibid, para. 51.

17 Volli, Ugo, Semiotica della pubblicità (Laterza 2005) 138, 144 Google Scholar.

18 C-446/07, Alberto Severi v Regione Emilia Romagna (Severi) [2009] ECR I-08041, para. 62. On this point, cf D Pisanello, “Il consumer batte la legge: la Corte di giustizia sulla disputa salame Felino” (ItaliaOggi - 12 September 2009).

19 One important example is Joined Cases C-503/13 and C-504/13, Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH contro AOK Sachsen-Anhalt – Die Gesundheitskasse. On this decision, see the commentary of Bergkamp, L, “Is There a Defect in the European Court’s Defect Test?” (2015) 2 EJRR 309 Google Scholar.

20 Cf the answer given by Mr Vytenis Andriukaitis on behalf of the Commission to Parliamentary question E-003771/2016: “The Commission considers that the applicable provisions provide sufficient legal basis to protect consumers from being misled”.

21 See on this issue the contribution by FratiniVergano European Lawyers, ‘Trade Perspectives’, Issue 21 – 17 November 2017, available at <www.fratinivergano.eu/en/trade-perspectives/>.

22 For instance, in Poland language adjustments provoke the turning of “salami” into “salani”, “mortadella” into “nortadella”, “hamburger” into “damburger”. On this point, cf Sirakova, I, “EU-Food Law after REFIT: Better Regulations or More of the Same” (2016) 6 European Food and Feed Law 531, 533 Google Scholar.

23 The prohibition of misleading information to food consumers is recognised in the first paragraph of Art 7 and substantiated in four hypotheses cited therein, which should not be considered as a numerus clausus. In particular, food information shall not be misleading:

“(a) as to the characteristics of the food and, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, country of origin or place of provenance, method of manufacture or production;

(b) by attributing to the food effects or properties which it does not possess;

(c) by suggesting that the food possesses special characteristics when in fact all similar foods possess such characteristics, in particular by specifically emphasising the presence or absence of certain ingredients and/or nutrients;

(d) by suggesting, by means of the appearance, the description or pictorial representations, the presence of a particular food or an ingredient, while in reality a component naturally present or an ingredient normally used in that food has been substituted with a different component or a different ingredient”.

24 On this notion, see Pisanello, D, ‘Le responsabilità per la conformità della fornitura di informazioni sugli alimenti: ovvero ancora à la recherche de l’anneau ’ (2015) 2 Diritto comunitario e degli scambi internazionali 2013 Google Scholar.

25 There is reason to believe that the designation “salame” is the typical example of a “traditional name” (“denominazione legale tradizionale” in the original version) devoted to the products so defined in the Decreto del Ministero delle attività produttive 21 settembre 2005, Disciplina della produzione e della vendita di taluni prodotti di salumeria, n. 231/2005. Other examples concern tomato sauce (“passata di pomodoro”) according to the Decreto del Ministero delle attività produttive 23 settembre 2005 n. 232/2005 - Definizione di passata di pomodoro, and some products baked in the oven, mentioned in the Decreto del Ministero delle attività produttive 22 luglio 2005, n. 177/2005, Disciplina della produzione e della vendita di taluni prodotti dolciari da forno.

26 According to Art 2, para. 2, lett p), Regulation (EU) 1169/2011, “‘descriptive name’ means a name providing a description of the food, and if necessary of its use, which is sufficiently clear to enable consumers to know its true nature and distinguish it from other products with which it might be confused”.

27 Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer.

28 Art 2, para. 2, lett n) provides that “‘legal name’ means the name of a food prescribed in the Union provisions applicable to it or, in the absence of such Union provisions, the name provided for in the laws, regulations and administrative provisions applicable in the Member State in which the food is sold to the final consumer or to mass caterers”.

29 Art 2, para. 2, lett. o): “‘customary name’ means a name which is accepted as the name of the food by consumers in the Member State in which that food is sold, without that name needing further explanation”.

30 Case C-220/98 Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH & Co OHG v Lancaster Group GmbH [2000] ECR I-00117, para. 27; Case C-210/96 Gut Springenheide and Tusky [1998] ECR I-4657, para. 31; Case C-470/93 Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe Köln eV v Mars GmbH [1995] ECR I-01923, para. 24.

31 Strecker, T, ‘What is Vegetarian?’ (2016) 1 European Food and Feed Law Review 21 Google Scholar.

32 This provision provides that “the name of the food shall include or be accompanied by particulars as to the physical condition of the food or the specific treatment which it has undergone (for example, powdered, refrozen, freeze-dried, quick-frozen, concentrated, smoked) in all cases where omission of such information could mislead the purchaser”.