EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.
Modern Legal
Invalid DateTime
euc_mergers
EU Commission - Mergers
#1 100.0%

Case C-38/25 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2025 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 November 2024 in Case T-189/21, Aloe Vera of Europe v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0038

62025CN0038

22. januar 2025

Official Journal of the European Union

C series

C/2025/1414

10.3.2025

(Case C-38/25 P)

(C/2025/1414)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: Aloe Vera of Europe BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

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 Respondent to pay the costs, if it gives final judgment in the matter, or 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 law in finding that Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 (1) 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 (2). 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.

Second, 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.

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

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

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1414/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia