Action brought on 24 July 2023 – European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
(Case C-462/23)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Nikolova and B. Rous Demiri, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
find that, (i) by failing to prohibit the marketing of natural mineral water and spring water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description, (ii) by failing to require that the labels of natural mineral waters and spring waters indicate the name of the spring, and (iii) by allowing the use of the term ‘spring water’ for water that does not satisfy the conditions for using the term ‘spring water’, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2), Article 7(2)(b) and Article 9(4)(c) of Directive 2009/54/EC 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters;
order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters introduces the rule ‘one spring – one trade description’ in Article 8(2) thereof, which prohibits the marketing of natural mineral waters and spring waters from one and the same spring under more than one trade description. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 7(2)(b), read in conjunction with Article 9(4)(c) of the directive, the labels of natural mineral waters and spring waters are to include an indication of the place where the spring is exploited and an indication of the name of the spring.
Bulgarian law, however, allows the marketing of natural mineral water and spring water originating from one and the same spring under more than one trade description and allows the marketing under different trade descriptions of mineral and natural water originating from one and the same water table or one and the same underground deposit and having identical characteristics, in breach of Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54/EC. Moreover, Bulgarian law does not require the name of the spring, for the purposes of the directive, to be part of the mandatory indications to be provided on the labels of natural mineral waters, and, consequently, is incompatible with Article 7(2)(b) of the directive. The Republic of Bulgaria has also failed to comply with its obligation under Article 9(4)(c) of the directive, since national law allows the marketing of spring water that does not meet the labelling requirements.
The Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Republic of Bulgaria on 2 July 2020. On 23 September 2021, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Republic of Bulgaria. Despite this, the measures transposing the directive have not yet been adopted by the Republic of Bulgaria or notified to the Commission.
____________
1 OJ 2009 L 164, p. 45.