- 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-363/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Patent- and marknadsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 May 2019 — Konsumentombudsmannen v Mezina AB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0363
62019CN0363
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
22.7.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 246/11
(Case C-363/19)
(2019/C 246/11)
Language of the case: Swedish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Konsumentombudsmannen
Defendant: Mezina AB
Questions referred
1.Do Articles 5 and 6, read in conjunction with Articles 10(1) and 28(5) of Regulation No 1924/2006, (1) regulate the burden of proof when a national court is determining whether unpermitted health claims have been made in a situation where the health claims in question correspond to a claim covered by an application under Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, but where the application has not yet led to a decision on authorisation or non-authorisation, or is the burden of proof determined according to national law?
2.If the answer to question 1 is that the provisions of Regulation No 1924/2006 regulate the burden of proof, does the burden of proof lie with the trader making a given health claim or with the authority requesting the national court to prohibit the trader from continuing to make the claim?
3.In a situation such as that described in question 1, do Articles 5 and 6, read in conjunction with Articles 10(1) and 28(5) of Regulation No 1924/2006, regulate the evidentiary requirements when a national court is determining whether unpermitted health claims are being made, or are the evidentiary requirements determined according to national law?
4.If the answer to question 3 is that the provisions of Regulation No 1924/2006 regulate the evidentiary requirements, what are the evidentiary requirements imposed?
5.Is the answer to questions 1–4 affected by the fact that Regulation No 1924/2006 (including Article 3(a) of the regulation) and Directive 2005/29 (2) can be applied together in the proceedings before the national court?
(1) 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).
(2) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005, L 149, p. 22).
* * *
Language of the case: Swedish