Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

17 September 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 – Nutrition and health claims made on foods – Article 10(2) – Specific conditions applicable to health claims – Mandatory information – Statement indicating the importance of a varied and balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle – Placement – Concepts of ‘labelling’ and ‘advertising’ – Food supplement advertised in the written press )

In Case C‑657/24,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany), made by decision of 26 September 2024, received at the Court on 9 October 2024, in the proceedings

Kyberg Pharma Vertriebs-GmbH

Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún, President of the Chamber, J. Passer, E. Regan (Rapporteur), D. Gratsias and B. Smulders, Judges,

Advocate General: R. Norkus,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Kyberg Pharma Vertriebs-GmbH, by J. Sachs, Rechtsanwalt,

– Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV, by C. Schmiedel, Rechtsanwältin,

– the European Commission, by B. Rous Demiri and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 January 2026,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9, and corrigendum OJ 2007 L 12, p. 3).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between Kyberg Pharma Vertriebs-GmbH (‘Kyberg Pharma’) and Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV concerning information that must be included in commercial advertising by Kyberg Pharma to promote a food supplement.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2002/46/EC

3 Article 2 of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (OJ 2002 L 183, p. 51) provides:

‘For the purposes of this Directive:

(a) “food supplements” means foodstuffs the purpose of which is to supplement the normal diet and which are concentrated sources of nutrients or other substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, alone or in combination, marketed in dose form, namely forms such as capsules, pastilles, tablets, pills and other similar forms, sachets of powder, ampoules of liquids, drop dispensing bottles, and other similar forms of liquids and powders designed to be taken in measured small unit quantities;

…’

Directive 2006/114/EC

4 Article 2 of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21) provides:

‘For the purposes of this Directive:

(a) “advertising” means the making of a representation in any form in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply of goods or services, including immovable property, rights and obligations;

…’

Regulation No 1924/2006

5 Recitals 3 and 16 of Regulation No 1924/2006 state:

‘(3) General labelling provisions are contained in Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs [(OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29)]. Directive [2000/13] generally prohibits the use of information that would mislead the purchaser or attribute medicinal properties to food. This Regulation should complement the general principles in Directive [2000/13] and lay down specific provisions concerning the use of nutrition and health claims concerning foods to be delivered as such to the consumer.

…

(16) It is important that claims on foods can be understood by the consumer and it is appropriate to protect all consumers from misleading claims. However, since the enactment of Council Directive [84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p.17)], the Court of Justice of the European Communities has found it necessary in adjudicating on advertising cases to examine the effect on a notional, typical consumer. In line with the principle of proportionality, and to enable the effective application of the protective measures contained in it, this Regulation takes as a benchmark the average consumer, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, but makes provision to prevent the exploitation of consumers whose characteristics make them particularly vulnerable to misleading claims. …’

6 Article 1 of that regulation, entitled ‘Subject matter and scope’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof:

‘1. This Regulation harmonises the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which relate to nutrition and health claims in order to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market whilst providing a high level of consumer protection.

2. This Regulation shall apply to nutrition and health claims made in commercial communications, whether in the labelling, presentation or advertising of foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer.

…’

7 Article 2 of that regulation, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides:

‘1. For the purposes of this Regulation:

…

(b) the definition of “food supplement” set out in Directive [2002/46] shall apply;

…

(d) the definition of “labelling” set out in Article 1(3)(a) of Directive [2000/13] shall apply.

2. The following definitions shall also apply:

1) “claim” means any message or representation, which is not mandatory under Community or national legislation, including pictorial, graphic or symbolic representation, in any form, which states, suggests or implies that a food has particular characteristics;

…

5) “health claim” means any claim that states, suggests or implies that a relationship exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health;

…’

8 In Article 3 of that regulation, entitled ‘General principles for all claims’, the first paragraph is worded as follows:

‘Nutrition and health claims may be used in the labelling, presentation and advertising of foods placed on the market in the Community only if they comply with the provisions of this Regulation.’

9 Article 10 of Regulation No 1924/2006, entitled ‘Specific conditions’, provides, in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 thereof:

‘1. Health claims shall be prohibited unless they comply with the general requirements in Chapter II and the specific requirements in this Chapter and are authorised in accordance with this Regulation and included in the lists of authorised claims provided for in Articles 13 and 14.

2. Health claims shall only be permitted if the following information is included in the labelling, or if no such labelling exists, in the presentation and advertising:

(a) a statement indicating the importance of a varied and balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle;

(b) the quantity of the food and pattern of consumption required to obtain the claimed beneficial effect;

(d) an appropriate warning for products that are likely to present a health risk if consumed to excess.

…

4. Where appropriate, guidelines on the implementation of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 25(2) and, if necessary, in consultation with interested parties, in particular food business operators and consumer groups.’

Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011

10 Recital 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18) states:

‘While the original objectives and the core components of the current labelling legislation are still valid, it is necessary to streamline it in order to ensure easier compliance and greater clarity for stakeholders and to modernise it in order to take account of new developments in the field of food information. This Regulation will both serve the interests of the internal market by simplifying the law, ensuring legal certainty and reducing administrative burden, and benefit citizens by requiring clear, comprehensible and legible labelling of foods.’

11 Article 2 of that regulation, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof:

‘1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

…

(g) the definition of “advertising” in point (a) of Article (2) of Directive [2006/114].

2. The following definitions shall also apply:

…

(c) “mandatory food information” means the particulars that are required to be provided to the final consumer by Union provisions;

…

(j) “labelling” means any words, particulars, trade marks, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol relating to a food and placed on any packaging, document, notice, label, ring or collar accompanying or referring to such food;

…’

12 Article 12 of that regulation, entitled ‘Availability and placement of mandatory food information’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof:

‘1. Mandatory food information shall be available and shall be easily accessible, in accordance with this Regulation, for all foods.

2. In the case of prepacked food, mandatory food information shall appear directly on the package or on a label attached thereto.’

13 Under Article 53 of the same regulation, entitled ‘Repeal’:

‘1. Directives 87/250/EEC, 90/496/EEC, 1999/10/EC, [2000/13], 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 are repealed as from 13 December 2014.

2. References to the repealed acts shall be construed as references to this Regulation.’

Implementing Decision 2013/63/EU

14 Point 2 of the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/63/EU of 24 January 2013 adopting guidelines for the implementation of specific conditions for health claims laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 22, p. 25), entitled ‘Mandatory information accompanying authorised health claims – Article 10(2)’, is worded as follows:

‘2.1. Distinction of three cases for the implementation of Article 10(2)

In order to comply with the Regulation, Article 10(2) requires two, or where appropriate, four pieces of mandatory information to be provided to the consumer when using a health claim. The information laid down in points (a) to (d) of Article 10(2) must be given in the labelling of the food, or in its presentation and advertising if no such labelling exists. This provision should be understood in the light of the objective of the legislator to ensure a high level of consumer protection by providing accurate and truthful information to help consumers make an informed choice.

“Labelling”, is defined in point (a) of Article 1(3) of Directive [2000/13] and point (j) of Article 2(2) of Regulation [No 1169/2011]. That definition states that “‘labelling’ means any words, particulars, trade marks, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol relating to a food and placed on any packaging, document, notice, label, ring or collar accompanying or referring to such food”. In the Union law there is a definition of “advertising” …, but no definition of “presentation”, which should therefore be understood in the light of the explanation provided for in point (a) of Article 2(3) of Directive [2000/13] and point (b) of Article 7(4) of Regulation [No 1169/2011].

A health claim can be made on the “labelling” which can mean more than just the label, since it encompasses all the information to the consumer about the food which it accompanies or refers to. The distinction between “labelling” and “advertising” is that “labelling” is concerned with the delivery of the food to the final consumer, while “advertising” is about the promotion of the supply of food by the food business operator.

(a) In order to comply with Article 10(2), it is necessary to include the mandatory information in the labelling of the food for which the health claim is made.

(b) Where no “labelling” exists, the mandatory information shall be given in the “advertising” and “presentation” of the food for which the health claim is made. For example, where a health claim is used in a generic advertising for a food (e.g. olive oil, dairy, meat, etc.) which does not link it to a specific product which would have “labelling”, then the mandatory information must also be given in the “advertising” and “presentation” of that food.

Article 12 of Regulation [No 1169/2011] establishes a principle that the consumer should always have the mandatory information when making a decision about a purchase of a food. …

…’

German law

15 Paragraph 3 of the Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Law against unfair competition) of 3 July 2004 (BGBl. 2004 I, p. 1414), in the version applicable to the main proceedings (‘the UWG’), entitled ‘Prohibition of unfair commercial practices’, provides, in subparagraph 1 thereof:

‘Unfair commercial practices shall be prohibited.’

16 Under Paragraph 3a of the UWG, entitled ‘Infringement of the law’:

‘A person shall be considered to be acting unfairly where he or she infringes a statutory provision that is also intended to regulate market behaviour in the interests of market participants and the infringement is liable to have a significantly adverse effect on the interests of consumers, other market participants or competitors.’

17 Paragraph 5a of the UWG, entitled ‘Misleading by omission’, provides, in subparagraph 1 thereof:

‘A person shall also be considered to be acting unfairly where he or she misleads a consumer or other market participant by withholding from him or her material information

1. which the consumer or other market participant needs, depending on the circumstances, in order to take an informed decision on a transaction, and

2. the withholding of which is liable to cause the consumer or other market participant to take a decision on a transaction that he or she would not have taken otherwise.’

18 Paragraph 8 of the UWG, entitled ‘Cessation of conduct and prohibitory injunction’, provides:

‘(1) Any commercial practice which is prohibited under Paragraph 3 or Paragraph 7 may give rise to an order to cease and desist and, in the event of a risk of recurrence, a prohibitory injunction. …

…

(3) The injunctive relief referred to in subparagraph 1 may be claimed by:

…

2. associations with legal personality seeking to promote commercial or independent professional interests which are included in the list of qualified trade associations referred to in Paragraph 8b if they have a significant number of members that are entrepreneurs supplying goods or services of the same or a similar nature on the same market and the infringement affects the interests of their members;

…’

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

19 Kyberg Pharma markets, in the form of capsules consisting, inter alia, of glucomannan (konjac mannan), a food supplement (‘the product concerned’), the packaging of which includes a statement highlighting the importance of a varied and balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle.

20 In 2020, Kyberg Pharma distributed in the written press an advertisement to promote the product concerned, containing, inter alia, the following claims: ‘Lose weight the healthy way’ and ‘Glucomannan helps you lose weight as part of a low-calorie diet’. It is common ground between the parties to the dispute in the main proceedings that that advertisement did not include the statement referred to in the preceding paragraph.

21 Taking the view that those claims should have been accompanied by the information listed in Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft, a trade association governed by German law whose remit, according to its statutes, is to combat unfair competition, brought an action before the Landgericht München I (Regional Court, Munich I, Germany). It sought, inter alia, an order requiring Kyberg Pharma to cease and desist, on pain of a penalty, from promoting the product concerned or causing it to be promoted, in the course of trade and for competition purposes, by making those health claims without mentioning the importance of a varied and balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle, in accordance with Article 10(2)(a).

22 After that court had upheld the action by a judgment of 19 January 2022, Kyberg Pharma brought an appeal against that judgment before the Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court, Munich, Germany), which dismissed the appeal by a judgment of 20 July 2023.

23 Kyberg Pharma brought an appeal on a point of law (Revision) against that judgment before the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany), which is the referring court.

24 The referring court considers that the success of that appeal depends on whether Article 10(2)(a) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that Kyberg Pharma fulfilled its obligation to provide information under that provision by stating, on the packaging of the product concerned, the information set out in that provision, or whether Kyberg Pharma was also required to have that information included in the advertisement published in the written press to promote that product.

25 Taking the view that, under that provision, that information must primarily be included in the ‘labelling’ of the food, the referring court is uncertain, first, whether written advertising may come under that concept.

26 In that regard, that court observes that the concept of ‘labelling’, the definition of which follows from Article 2(1)(d) of Regulation No 1924/2006, read in conjunction with Article 2(2)(j) and Article 53(2) of Regulation No 1169/2011, includes, inter alia, any words and particulars relating to a food and placed not only on the packaging but also on any document included with or referring to such food.

27 Second, in the event that written advertising does not come under that concept, the referring court queries whether the information specified in Article 10(2)(a) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must, despite being stated on the labelling of a food, also be included in written advertising intended to promote that food by means of a health claim, in accordance with the objective of achieving a high level of consumer protection referred to by that regulation.

28 The referring court takes the view that the wording of that provision in the German- and English-language versions could be interpreted as meaning that whenever a health claim is made, the mandatory information specified in that provision must be represented both on the labelling and in the advertising to promote the food concerned.

29 In those circumstances, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Is Article 10(2) of Regulation [No 1924/2006] to be interpreted to the effect that the term “labelling” relating to a food also covers written advertising for the food, with the result that the use of a health claim in written advertising means that the information requirements laid down in that provision must be satisfied in the advertising?

(2) Is Article 10(2) of Regulation [No 1924/2006] to be interpreted to the effect that, where health claims are used in food advertising, the information requirements existing under that provision must also be satisfied in the advertising, even if the labelling for the food contains the required information?’

Consideration of the questions referred

The first question

30 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that written advertising to promote a food supplement comes under the concept of ‘labelling’ within the meaning of that provision.

31 It should be noted at the outset that, under Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, that regulation is to apply to nutrition and health claims made in commercial communications of foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer, including, as is apparent from Article 2(1)(b) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/46, food supplements.

32 In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation No 1924/2006, such health claims may be used in the labelling, presentation and advertising of foods placed on the EU market only if they comply with the provisions of that regulation.

33 In that context, it should be pointed out that, under the specific requirements applicable to health claims, Article 10(2) of that regulation provides that such claims are only to be permitted if the information listed in that provision is included in the labelling, or if no such labelling exists, in the presentation and advertising for that product.

34 That gives rise to the question as to whether written advertising may come under the concept of ‘labelling’ within the meaning of that article.

35 In accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, for the purpose of interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 11 June 2020, ratiopharm, C‑786/18, EU:C:2020:459, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).

36 As concerns, in the first place, the wording of Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, it must be noted that the concept of ‘labelling’ referred to in that provision is defined in Article 2(1)(d) of that regulation by reference to Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 2000/13, since replaced by Article 2(2)(j) of Regulation No 1169/2011, as any words, particulars, trade marks, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol relating to a food and placed on any packaging, document, notice, label, ring or collar accompanying or referring to such food.

37 It follows from that definition that the EU legislature intended that concept of ‘labelling’ to be given a broad scope.

38 However, it should be observed that, in Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, the EU legislature uses three different terms, that is, ‘labelling’, ‘presentation’ and ‘advertising’, phrased in such a way that each has its own scope, without there being any overlap with that of the other two terms.

39 In particular, the expression ‘if no [such labelling] exists’ used in Article 10(2) refers, in accordance with its common meaning, to a relationship not of equivalence but rather of subsidiarity between the concept of ‘labelling’ and the concepts of ‘presentation’ and ‘advertising’ (see, by analogy, judgment of 7 July 2016, Ambisig, C‑46/15, EU:C:2016:530, paragraph 33).

40 In those circumstances, it cannot be inferred from the wording of Article 10(2) that written advertising comes under the concept of ‘labelling’ within the meaning of that provision.

41 As concerns, in the second place, the context of Article 10(2), it should be observed that the concurrent use of the concepts ‘labelling’ and ‘advertising’ in several provisions of Regulation No 1924/2006, such as in Article 1(2) and Article 3, indicates that that regulation operates a systematic distinction between those two concepts, and the first concept cannot be considered to encompass the second.

42 Furthermore, as is apparent from recital 3 of that regulation, the regulation should complement the general principles in Directive 2000/13. Since that directive has been repealed and replaced by Regulation No 1169/2011, which introduced new rules replacing those of that directive, Regulation No 1924/2006 must be understood in the light of Regulation No 1169/2011.

43 In that regard, it must be observed that, for the purposes of Regulation No 1169/2011, Article 2(1)(g) of that regulation refers to the definition of the concept of ‘advertising’ in Article 2(a) of Directive 2006/114, according to which ‘the making of a representation in any form in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply of goods or services’ must be considered to be advertising.

44 It follows that the concept of ‘advertising’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2006/114 also has a broad scope and covers all forms in which such a representation could be made, including in writing.

45 Although, as has been observed in paragraphs 37 and 44 of the present judgment, the concepts of ‘labelling’ and ‘advertising’ within the meaning of Regulation No 1169/2011 are defined broadly, the fact remains that a distinction is drawn between them in that regulation. Therefore, advertising, including advertising in written form, cannot be included in the concept of ‘labelling’ within the meaning of Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 without that distinction being rendered ineffective.

46 As concerns, in the third place, the objectives of Regulation No 1924/2006, it should be recalled that, first, that regulation, as stated in Article 1(1) thereof, seeks to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market while providing a high level of consumer protection, in particular against misleading claims, by facilitating the consumer’s choice by placing safe and adequately labelled products on the market. Second, health protection is among the principal aims of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 April 2025, Novel Nutriology, C‑386/23, EU:C:2025:304, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).

47 On that basis, it must be noted that the concepts ‘labelling’ and ‘advertising’ have different purposes. In that regard, Implementing Decision 2013/63, which was adopted by the European Commission within the framework of the implementing powers conferred on it by the EU legislature under Article 10(4) and Article 25 of Regulation No 1924/2006, specifies, in the third paragraph of point 2.1 of the Annex thereto, that ‘the distinction between “labelling” and “advertising” is that “labelling” is concerned with the delivery of the food to the final consumer, while “advertising” is about the promotion of the supply of food by the food business operator’.

48 Consequently, as observed by the Advocate General, in essence, in point 58 of his Opinion, labelling has an informative purpose while advertising has a promotional purpose.

49 In that regard, recital 16 of Regulation No 1924/2006 states that it is important that claims on foods be understood by the consumer and that all consumers should be protected against misleading claims, specifying that that regulation takes as a benchmark, inter alia, the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors (judgment of 30 January 2020, Dr. Willmar Schwabe, C‑524/18, EU:C:2020:60, paragraph 35).

50 Although to extend, as a matter of principle, the requirements on labelling to written advertising would be likely to ensure a higher level of consumer protection, such an extension would have the effect, as observed by the Advocate General in point 61 of his Opinion, of compromising one of the other objectives of Regulation No 1924/2006 which, as has been pointed out in paragraph 46 of the present judgment, is to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market, and therefore the balance which the EU legislature intended to establish between that objective and that of health protection.

51 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that written advertising to promote a food supplement does not come under the concept of ‘labelling’ within the meaning of that provision.

The second question

52 By its second question, the referring court asks whether Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 requires that, where health claims are used in advertising for a food supplement, the information laid down in that provision must be stated in that advertising if that information is already included in the labelling of that supplement.

53 It should be noted that, according to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to decide the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it (judgment of 26 March 2026, AVEPA, C‑294/25, EU:C:2026:254, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

54 In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the dispute in the main proceedings concerns advertising to promote a food supplement published in a journal in the form of an advertisement. The analysis must therefore be limited to written advertising only.

55 Accordingly, in order to provide an answer that will be of use to the referring court, it must be held that, by its second question, that court asks, in essence, whether Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the mandatory information listed in that provision must be included in written advertising to promote a food supplement if that information is included in the labelling of that supplement.

56 In that regard, as recalled in paragraph 33 of the present judgment, Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 provides that health claims are to be permitted only if the information listed in that provision is included in the labelling, or if no such labelling exists, in the presentation and advertising.

57 Accordingly, it can be inferred from the use in that provision of the conjunction ‘or’, which is placed before the expression ‘if no such labelling exists’, that the information listed in that provision must be included primarily on the labelling of the product concerned. However, in the absence of such labelling, that information must be communicated by other means, such as the presentation and advertising of that product.

58 It is true, as observed by the referring court, that in the French-language version of Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 the conjunction ‘or’, which is used between the words ‘presentation’ and ‘advertising’, could imply that food business operators enjoy some discretion in fulfilling their obligation under that provision to provide information where a food does not have any labelling, while other language versions of that provision, such as the Spanish- (‘en la presentación y la publicidad’), German- (‘die Aufmachung der Lebensmittel und die Lebensmittelwerbung’), English- (‘the presentation and advertising’) or Lithuanian- (‘pateikime ir reklamoje’) language versions, use the conjunction ‘and’, thereby implying that without labelling, the information must be included both in the presentation and in the advertising of the product concerned.

59 However, as observed by the Advocate General, in essence, in points 33 and 34 of his Opinion, according to the Court’s settled case-law, the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision or be made to override the other language versions. Provisions of EU law must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all languages of the European Union. Where there is divergence between the various language versions of an EU legislative text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the general scheme and the purpose of the rules of which it forms part (judgment of 12 September 2019, A and Others, C‑347/17, EU:C:2019:720, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). Moreover, in the present case, that divergence between the language versions of Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 cannot in any event be decisive, given that the use of the conjunctions ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the word ‘advertising’ concerns a scenario where there is no labelling stating the information referred to in Article 10(2)(a), which is not the case in the main proceedings.

60 It follows that the obligation to state the mandatory information listed in Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be considered to have been fulfilled, provided that that information is included in the labelling of the product concerned, as is the case for the food supplement at issue in the main proceedings, with the result that it is not necessary that that information is included in the advertising for that product.

61 That interpretation is supported both by the context of Article 10(2) and by the objective of that regulation.

62 In so far as concerns, in the first place, the context of Article 10(2), it should be observed that the Annex to Implementing Decision 2013/63 expressly provides, in point (a) of the third paragraph of point 2.1, that in order to comply with Article 10(2), it is necessary to include the mandatory information in the labelling of the food for which the health claim is made, and, in the first subparagraph of point (b) of the third paragraph of point 2.1, that where no labelling exists, that information is to be given, inter alia, in the advertising of that food.

63 In addition, Article 12 of Regulation No 1169/2011, entitled ‘Availability and placement of mandatory food information’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof, that mandatory food information is to be available and is to be easily accessible, in accordance with that regulation, for all foods, while it follows from Article 2(2)(c) of that regulation that such mandatory information means the information listed in Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006. Moreover, in paragraph 2, Article 12 of Regulation No 1169/2011 provides that, in the case of prepacked food, mandatory food information is to appear directly on the package or on a label attached thereto.

64 In that regard, as stated in the second subparagraph of point (b) of the third paragraph of point 2.1 of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2013/63, ‘Article 12 of Regulation [No 1169/2011] establishes a principle that the consumer should always have the mandatory information when making a decision about a purchase of a food’.

65 Where a food has labelling which includes the mandatory information listed in Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, it is by means of that labelling that the consumer has that mandatory information when making a decision, the purpose of such labelling being precisely to inform that consumer, as has been observed in paragraph 48 of the present judgment. Consequently, if the EU legislature had intended to require that that mandatory information also be included in written advertising for that product, it would have made express provision for that.

66 As regards, in the second place, the objectives of Regulation No 1924/2006, as has been observed in paragraph 46 of the present judgment, that regulation aims to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market whilst providing a high level of consumer protection.

67 For that purpose, it is mandatory, in particular, to give consumers the necessary information to make choices in full knowledge of the facts (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 December 2015, Neptune Distribution, C‑157/14, EU:C:2015:823, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).

68 However, provided that, as has been stated in paragraph 60 of the present judgment, the mandatory information listed in Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 is included in the labelling of the product concerned, it is not necessary that that information also be included in the written advertising for that product, as the consumer concerned has all the necessary information to make an informed decision in full knowledge of the facts when making the purchase.

69 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the mandatory information listed in that provision does not have to be included in written advertising to promote a food supplement if that information is included in the labelling of that supplement.

Costs

70 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

1. Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods

must be interpreted as meaning that written advertising to promote a food supplement does not come under the concept of ‘labelling’ within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006

must be interpreted as meaning that the mandatory information listed in that provision does not have to be included in written advertising to promote a food supplement if that information is included in the labelling of that supplement.

[Signatures]

* Language of the case: German.