- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-442/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany)) — Karl Heinz Bablok and Others v Freistaat Bayern (Genetically modified food for human consumption — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Articles 2 to 4 and 12 — Directive 2001/18/EC — Article 2 — Directive 2000/13/EC — Article 6 — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Article 2 — Apicultural products — Presence of pollen from genetically modified plants — Consequences — Placing on the market — Definition of organism and food for human consumption containing ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms )
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009CA0442
62009CA0442
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
22.10.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 311/7
(Case C-442/09)(<span class="super">1</span>)
(Genetically modified food for human consumption - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Articles 2 to 4 and 12 - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 2 - Directive 2000/13/EC - Article 6 - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 2 - Apicultural products - Presence of pollen from genetically modified plants - Consequences - Placing on the market - Definition of ‘organism’ and ‘food for human consumption containing ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms’)
2011/C 311/09
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Karl Heinz Bablok, Stefan Egeter, Josef Stegmeier, Karlhans Müller, Barbara Klimesch
Defendant: Freistaat Bayern
Intervening parties: Monsanto Technology LLC, Monsanto Agrar Deutschland GmbH, Monsanto Europe SA/NV
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 2.5 and 2.10, Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1) — Unintentional and adventitious presence in apicultural products of pollen from genetically modified plants which is no longer capable of reproducing — Possible repercussions on the procedure for placing such products on the market — Concept of ‘genetically modified organism’ and ‘produced from GMOs’
Operative part of the judgment
1.The concept of a genetically modified organism within the meaning of Article 2.5 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed must be interpreted as meaning that a substance such as pollen derived from a variety of genetically modified maize, which has lost its ability to reproduce and is totally incapable of transferring the genetic material which it contains, no longer comes within the scope of that concept.
3.Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Regulation No 1829/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, when they imply an obligation to authorise and supervise a foodstuff, a tolerance threshold such as that provided for in respect of labelling in Article 12(2) of that regulation may not be applied to that obligation by analogy.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.