GRUR Prax 21/2020(28. Oktober 2020) - EuGH 1.10.2020 - C-485/18 Zusätzliche verpflichtende Ursprungs- oder Herkunftsangaben für Milch

 For these reasons the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) ruled for law:

1. Art. 26 of Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on informing consumers about food and amending Regulations (EC) No. 1924/2006 and (EC) No. 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 87/250 / EEC of the Commission, Directive 90/496 / EEC of the Council, Directive 1999/10 / EC of the Commission, Directive 2000/13 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives 2002/67 / EC and 2008/5 / EC of the Commission and Regulation (EC) No. 608/2004 of the Commission is to be interpreted as meaning that the mandatory indication of the country of origin or the place of provenance of Milk and milk used as an ingredient as an "aspect specially harmonized by this Ordinance" within the meaning of Art. 38 para.1 of this Ordinance is to be considered if consumers could be misled without this information and that it does not prevent the Member States from enacting provisions on the basis of Art. 39 of this Ordinance that prescribe additional mandatory information, provided that this is done with the aim of are compatible, which the Union legislature has pursued with the special harmonization of the aspect of the mandatory indication of the country of origin or the place of provenance, and form a coherent whole with this indication.which the Union legislature has pursued with the special harmonization of the aspect of the mandatory indication of the country of origin or the place of provenance, and form a coherent whole with this indication.which the Union legislature has pursued with the special harmonization of the aspect of the mandatory indication of the country of origin or the place of provenance, and form a coherent whole with this indication.

2. Article 39 of Regulation 1169/2011 is to be interpreted as meaning that, when it comes to national provisions which are justified by consumer protection with regard to paragraph 1 of this article, the two requirements referred to in paragraph 2 of this article namely that on the one hand there is a "demonstrable connection between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance" and on the other hand that "[it is proven] that the majority of consumers attach essential importance to this information" are not to be understood together, so that the existence of this demonstrable connection cannot be assessed by solely using subjective criteria relating to the meaning of the association,which the majority of consumers can choose between certain qualities of the food in question and its origin or provenance.

3. Art. 39 (2) of Regulation No. 1169/2011 is to be interpreted as meaning that the term "qualities of the food" does not include the suitability of a food for transport and its lack of susceptibility to the risks of spoilage occurring en route, so that these characteristics at the assessment of a possibly "demonstrable [existing] connection between certain qualities of the food and its origin or its origin" within the meaning of this provision cannot come into play. 

https://tinyurl.com/28qohvgj