header-logo header-logo

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

European Union

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll