23.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/6

(Case C-485/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Provision of food information to consumers - Article 9(1)(i) and Article 26(2)(a) - Mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of foods - Failure to indicate which might mislead the consumer - Article 38(1) - Matters specifically covered by the harmonisation - Article 39(2) - Adoption of national measures providing for additional mandatory particulars concerning the country of origin or place of provenance of specific types or categories of foods - Conditions - Existence of a proven link between one or several qualities of the foods concerned and their origin or provenance - Concepts of ‘proven link’ and ‘qualities’ - Evidence that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of that information - National measure providing for the mandatory indication of the national, European or non-European origin of milk)

(2020/C 399/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Groupe Lactalis

Defendants: Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of milk or milk used as an ingredient must be regarded as a ‘matter specifically harmonised’ by that regulation, within the meaning of Article 38(1) of that regulation, where failure to include that indication might mislead the consumer, and as not precluding the Member States from adopting measures requiring additional mandatory particulars on the basis of Article 39 of that regulation, on the condition that those particulars are compatible with the objective pursued by the EU legislature by means of the specific harmonisation of the matter of mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance and that they form one coherent whole with that indication.

2.Article 39 of Regulation No 1169/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of national measures that are justified, in the light of paragraph 1 of that article, on grounds of the protection of consumers, the two criteria laid down in paragraph 2 of that article, that is to say, first, the existence of a ‘proven link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance’, and, second, the ‘evidence that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of that information’ must not be considered in combination, so that the existence of that proven link cannot be examined solely on the basis of subjective elements relating to the importance of the association that the majority of consumers may make between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance.

3.Article 39(2) of Regulation No 1169/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘qualities of the food’ does not include the resilience of the food to transport and the risk of deterioration during transit, so that that resilience cannot be taken into account when examining whether there is a possible ‘proven link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance’, referred to in that provision.

OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.