Action brought on 3 August 2012 - Afepadi and Others v Commission

(Case T-354/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Preparados alimenticios especiales, dietéticos y plantas medicinales (Afepadi) (Barcelona, Spain), Elaboradores Dietéticos, SA (Spain), Nova Diet, SA (Burgos, Spain), Laboratorios Vendrell, SA (Spain), Ynsadiet, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Velázquez González, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul recitals 11, 14 and 17 in the preamble to Commission Regulation (EU) 432/2012 as they are seriously detrimental to the applicants' interests;

in the interest of legal certainty, declare that the rejection of the health claims listed in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of the Parliament and of the Council must result from a legislative act;

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 16 May 2012 the Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children's development and health. ² That regulation implements Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. 

In support of their action, the applicants claim that the principle of legal certainty has been infringed.

In that regard, it claims that, in spite of the work which has been carried out, the Commission's task laid down in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of adopting a Community list of permitted claims has not been fulfilled in its entirety, since not all of the health claims submitted for evaluation by the EFSA were made subject to an authorisation decision. Consequently, a large number of statements remain to be evaluated for the first time or to be evaluated more extensively, including evaluations of botanical substances which the applicants frequently use in their foodstuffs.

In that way, operators in the foodstuff production sector and users of botanical substances know, with certainty, which health claims are based on generally accepted scientific data (the 222 authorised health claims) and which may be used in their products. However, they have not been informed in the same way (by means of a regulation) of the situation as regards claims which are not on the authorised list, that is to say, whether they are pending evaluation or require further evaluation, whether they have been rejected, whether they have been authorised or not, or when and in what time-frame.

____________

¹ - OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1.

² - OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.