Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/1416

10.3.2025

(Case C-48/25 P)

(C/2025/1416)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: Aboca SpA Soc. agr., Coswell SpA and Associação portuguesa de suplementos alimentares (Apard)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-302/21;

—make use of its power under the second sentence of the first paragraph 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 Application;

—alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the pleas and arguments not already assessed; and

—order the Respondents to pay the costs, if it gives final judgment in the matter, or to reserve the costs of the present proceedings, if it refers the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the Commission respectfully submits that the General Court erred in interpreting Regulation (EU) No 2021/468 (1) of 18 March 2021 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives in a way that is neither consistent with the wording, context and the objectives pursued by the relevant rules nor capable of safeguarding the validity and effectiveness of Union law.

Second, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in finding that Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 (2) 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 lays down two cumulative conditions to prohibit the addition to foods or the use in the manufacture of foods of certain substances and preparations/ingredients containing them and, thus in applying that legal test to decide on the validity of Regulation (EU) 2021/468. In particular, the General Court erred in considering that it is not sufficient that the substance is found to be harmful to health by misinterpreting that Regulation.

Third, the Commission contends that the General Court erred in law in that it breached its duty to state reasons and overstepped its scrutiny powers in scientific matters as regards whether hydroxyanthracenic 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/2025/1416/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—