header-logo header-logo

European Union

12 May 2011
Issue: 7465 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Mensch und Natur AG v Freistaat Bayern C-327/09, [2011] All ER (D) 23 (May)

A Commission decision taken on the basis of art 7 of the reg and refusing authorisation to place on the market of the EU a food or food ingredient was not binding on any persons other than the person or persons whom that decision specified as its addressees.

By contrast, the competent authorities of a member state had to establish whether a product marketed in the territory of that member state, the characteristics of which appeared to match those of the product which was the subject-matter of that Commission decision, was a novel food or novel food ingredient within the meaning of art 1(2) of the reg and, where necessary, they had to require the person concerned to comply with the provisions of the reg.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll