Mirjam Liebmann

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 10 (2015), Issue 5, Page 364 - 367

Report on the judgement of the European Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 in the case C-195/14 (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v. Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG)

Mirjam Liebmann

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 8 (2013), Issue 3, Page 202 - 204

The fact that food labelled “organic” might have a positive effect on the buying patterns of quite a significant number of consumers can hardly be denied. Therefore, a German food business operator had the smart idea to sell mineral water labelled as “Bio-Mineralwasser” (organic mineral water) accompanied by a corresponding logo. The claim as well as the logo were in accordance with a set of rules about the requirements for using both the words “Bio-Mineralwasser” and the logo, which was made up by a society founded by the same witty businessman. The German Centre for Protection against Unfair Competition (Wettbewerbszentrale) took issue with this labelling practice alleging that it infringed German competition law. The parties eventually ended up in court where the Centre (“plaintiff ”) applied for an injunction concerning the use of the words “Bio-Mineralwasser” and the “Bio-Mineralwasser”- logo for mineral water. The business operator (“defendant”) applied for dismissal of the case.

Mirjam Liebmann

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 8 (2013), Issue 5, Page 344 - 348

Much has happened since the last update1 on the claim2 filed by the two eager professors, Moritz Hagenmeyer and Andreas Hahn, against the European Commission concerning the annulment of Regulation (EU) No. 1170/2011 refusing the authorisation of the health claim “The regular consumption of significant amounts of water can significantly reduce the risk of dehydration and concomitant reduction of performance”3.While the defendant managed to avoid taking a position on the reasons of justification of the claim by pleading its inadmissibility, it was now forced to deal with them since the Court has declared that the decision about the admissibility will be reserved for final judgment. After the Court admitted the Council of the European Union’s application for intervention, the Council submitted a comprehensive statement in support of the defendant. The plaintiffs, in return, replied to both the defendant’s statement of defence as well as the Council’s statement of intervention maintaining their plea for annulment of Regulation (EU) No. 1170/2011. The defendant continued pleading for inadmissibility of the claim, and alternatively for its lacking justification. In the meantime, the Court has declared the end of the extensive written procedure; thus, no further statement of either party is likely to follow in near future. As a consequence, now is the right time to conclude reporting on the Water Claim proceedings! For this purpose, the arguments of all three parties involved are briefly summarised in the following. I.

Mirjam Liebmann

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 7 (2012), Issue 5, Page 273 - 278

On 13 January 2012, two German professors, Moritz Hagenmeyer and Andreas Hahn, filed suit1 against the European Commission in accordance with Article 263 TFEU because the Commission had refused to authorise the plaintiffs’ application for authorisation of a health claim. Four years prior to that, on 11 February 2008, an authorisation had been sought for the claim “The regular consumption of significant amounts of water can significantly reduce the risk of dehydration and concomitant reduction of performance”, which the defendant refused by way of adopting Regulation (EU) No. 1170/2011.2 In due time, the defendant responded to the statement of claim by pleading its inadmissibility, and shortly after, the Council of the European Union filed an application to intervene in support of the defendant. The plaintiffs agreed to the Council’s application for intervention and responded to the defendant’s defence to the statement of claim in May 2012. Both the defendants’ as well as the plaintiffs’ arguments concerning questions of admissibility are presented in the following.