Moritz Hagenmeyer

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 10 (2015), Issue 1, Page 46 - 48

A new broom sweeps clean, so they say. Of course one should not equate judges with brooms. But the first senate of the German Federal Court of Appeal has got a new president. And it appears that the court has slightly changed its attitude towards health and nutrition claims at the same time (especially compared to its “Praebiotik + Probiotik” case, cf. EffL 2014, 193). Now you may be curious: Is this a change for the better? Let us put it this way: If you want to market alcoholic cocktails containing energy-drinks, the answer is definitely yes. Otherwise the answer remains somewhat unclear. However, certain conclusions can of course be drawn from the “Energy & Vodka” judgement of 9.10.2014 (I ZR 167/12), the latest on claims by Germany’s highest civil court. This is what the case was all about:

Moritz Hagenmeyer

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 8 (2013), Issue 3, Page 197 - 198

Once again the German Federal Court had an opportunity to contribute to the normal functioning of health claims-interpretation (as to its first claims case cf. EFFL 2011, p. 58). Alas, had the “Monstercheek” (“Monsterbacke”) judgment of 5.12.2012 (I ZR 36/11) been a claims application it might have failed for lack of precision and the court’s decision would most probably have been classified as “non specific”. By analysing that decision, this brief will discuss why that is so, what the case was about and what potential consequences for food advertising follow from the judgment.

Moritz Hagenmeyer, Andreas Hahn

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 8 (2013), Issue 1, Page 10 - 24

Many health claims whose authorisation the food industry had hoped would not cause any problems, have found no grace before the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Amongst the different grounds for rejection, which are often inadequately explained, one stands out, namely “lack of precision” regarding the health relationship. Such claims that have been negatively evaluated by EFSA are not authorised by the European Commission. The authors present an option whereby these EFSA-assessed, unauthorised health claims can be used for the marketing of foods in practice, provided the relevant products contain vitamins or minerals or other substances for which health claims have been authorised.