{"id":22601,"date":"2025-05-12T16:12:32","date_gmt":"2025-05-12T14:12:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.laffineur.com\/?p=22601"},"modified":"2025-05-12T16:16:33","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T14:16:33","slug":"the-court-of-justice-rules-that-companies-are-not-entitled-to-use-health-claims-relating-to-botanical-substances-in-the-advertising-of-their-food-products-until-those-claims-have-been-assessed-and-aut","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.laffineur.com\/en\/the-court-of-justice-rules-that-companies-are-not-entitled-to-use-health-claims-relating-to-botanical-substances-in-the-advertising-of-their-food-products-until-those-claims-have-been-assessed-and-aut\/","title":{"rendered":"The Court of Justice rules that companies are not entitled to use health claims relating to botanical substances in the advertising of their food products until those claims have been assessed and authorised"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a judgment delivered on 30 April 2025 (Case C-386\/23 Novel Nutriology GmbH v Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.<\/em>), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that companies cannot use health claims relating to botanical substances<\/strong> in the advertising of their food products until those claims have been assessed and authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1924\/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts<\/u><\/p>\n

The German company Novel Nutriology GmbH marketed a food supplement which it advertised on its website using claims relating to \u2018saffron extract\u2019 and \u2018melon juice extract\u2019 which are ingredients of that product.<\/p>\n

Considering that these claims are prohibited by Article 10 of Regulation No 1924\/2006, VSW, a professional association under German law whose purpose is to defend the commercial interests of its members, brought an action before the German courts seeking to prohibit Novel Nutriology from promoting the product concerned on the basis of the claims in question.<\/p>\n

Arguments of Novel Nutriology<\/u><\/p>\n

In the proceedings, Novel Nutriology argued that the European Commission, under whose authority the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) operates, had suspended the examination of health claims relating to \u2018botanical substances\u2019. Consequently, according to Novel Nutriology, Regulation No 1924\/2006 is inapplicable to health claims relating to \u2018botanical substances\u2019 due to the Commission’s failure to act for several years. According to Novel Nutriology, such inaction must be regarded as a disproportionate restriction on the freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article<\/strong> Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union<\/strong>, as well as an unjustified difference in treatment<\/strong> within the meaning of Article 20 of the Charter, which enshrines the principle of equality before the law, given the advertising opportunities available to competitors whose applications for the registration of health claims relate to substances assessed by EFSA and examined by the Commission.<\/p>\n

Reasoning of the CJEU<\/u><\/p>\n

The CJEU rejected the arguments put forward by Novel Nutriology on the grounds that:<\/p>\n