7.9.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/17

(Case C-299/12) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Nutrition and health claims made on foods - Article 2(2)(6) - ‘Reduction of disease risk claim’ - Article 28(2) - Products bearing trade marks or brand names - Transitional measures)

2013/C 260/29

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Green Swan Pharmaceuticals CR, a.s.

Defendant: Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce, ústřední inspektorát

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Intrepretation of Article 1(3), Article 2(2)(6) and Article 28(2) of 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 (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9) — ‘Reduction of disease risk claim’ — Claim on the packaging of a product, stating that ‘the preparation also contains calcium and Vitamin D3, which help to reduce a risk factor in the development of osteoporosis and fractures’

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 2(2)(6) of 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be considered a ‘reduction of disease risk claim’ within the meaning of that provision, a health claim need not necessarily expressly state that the consumption of a category of food, a food or one of its constituents ‘significantly’ reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease.

2.Article 28(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, as amended by Regulation No 116/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial communication appearing on the packaging of a food may constitute a trade mark or brand name, within the meaning of that provision, provided that it is protected, as a mark or as a name, by the applicable legislation. It is for the national court to ascertain, having regard to all the legal and factual considerations of the case before it, whether that communication is indeed a trade mark or brand name thus protected.

3.Article 28(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, as amended by Regulation No 116/2010, must be interpreted as referring only to foods bearing a trade mark or brand name which must be considered a nutrition or health claim within the meaning of that regulation and which, in that form, existed before 1 January 2005.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.