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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll