Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62018TN0556

    Case T-556/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Sensient Colors Europe v Commission

    OJ C 399, 5.11.2018, p. 54–55 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.11.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 399/54

    Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Sensient Colors Europe v Commission

    (Case T-556/18)

    (2018/C 399/69)

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Sensient Colors Europe GmbH (Geesthacht, Germany) (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer, D. Zechmeister und W. Berlit, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    declare as null and void the defendant’s decision of 31 July 2018 (DG Sante/E2/RP/amf(2018)4523972) to classify as invalid the request to place a novel food on the Union market as well as the update of the Union list provided for in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) with document number NF 2018/0355, and end the application procedure; and

    —

    order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, namely infringement of Article 6(1) and 6(5) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2469, (2) and Article 10(1) in conjunction with Article 10(3) and Article 11(1) or in conjunction with Article 12(2) of Regulation 2015/2283.

    It submits, inter alia, that the defendant incorrectly assumed that the colouring extract based on dried butterfly pea flowers, on which the application is based, did not fall within the scope of Regulation 2015/2283 and was a food additive within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation No 1333/2008.

    (1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 (OJ 2015, L 327, p. 1).

    (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2469 of 20 December 2017 laying down administrative and scientific requirements for applications referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel food (OJ 2017, L 351, p. 64).

    Top