Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/1636

(Case C-55/25 P)

(C/2025/1636)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, I. Galindo Martín, B. Rous Demiri and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Syndicat national des compléments alimentaires (Synadiet), Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Preparados alimenticios especiales, dietéticos y plantas medicinales (Afepadi), Be-Sup, Fitoform, Laboratoires Diététique et Santé, Laboratoires Forte Pharma S.A.M, Laboratoires Ilapharm, Laboratoires Ineldea, Laboratoires Juva Santé, Laboratoire Pionneau, Laboratoires Super Diet, Laboratoires Vitarmonyl, La Source, Les Trois Chênes, Naturenvie, Noria Distribution, Pharmanager Ingrédients, Plantex, Santé Verte SAS, Thera-Sana, Vitamins, V.S. Vecteur Santé Laboratoires, European Federation of associations of Health Product Manufacturers (EHPM), FederSalus – Italian Association of Health Products Manufacturers and Distributors

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 November 2024, Commission v Synadiet and Others (T-274/21, ECLI:EU:T:2024:806);

—Use the power conferred on it by the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union to give final judgment in the matter by dismissing the action;

—Alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the pleas in law and arguments which have not already been examined; and

—Order the respondents to pay the costs, in the event that the Court gives final judgment in the matter, or reserve the costs of the present proceedings, in the event that it refers the case back to the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is divided into three grounds.

First, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in interpreting Regulation (EU) 2021/468 of 18 March 2021 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives (1) in a manner which is neither consistent with the wording, context and objectives pursued by the relevant rules nor capable of safeguarding the validity and effectiveness of EU law.

Secondly, the Commission maintains that the General Court erred in law in holding that Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (2) lays down two cumulative conditions for prohibiting the addition to foods, or the use in the manufacture of foods, of certain substances and preparations/ingredients containing them and, therefore, by applying that legal criterion to rule on the validity of Regulation 2021/468. In particular, the General Court erred in law in finding that it is not sufficient for the substance to be deemed harmful to health for it to be prohibited.

Thirdly, the Commission argues that the General Court erred in law in that it breached its obligation to state reasons and exceeded its powers of review in scientific matters with regard to the question whether hydroxyanthracene derivatives are harmful to health.

—

(1) OJ 2021 L 96, p. 6.

(2) OJ 2006 L 404, p. 26.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1636/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—