The LG Düsseldorf found that the disputed information from the online merchant just do not conform to the required 1924/2006/EG, but against in Article 5 paragraph 1 of Regulation 1924/2006/EG formulated conditions would conflict .
Reason: In accordance with Article 5 paragraph 1 of Regulation 1924/2006/EG nutrition and health claims are allowed only if the substances referred to by the information in the relevant product in a quantity are the by generally accepted scientific knowledge is such as to obtain the claimed nutritional or physiological effect (Art. 5 para 1st b) i) of Regulation 1924/2006/EG). In addition, the substances concerned in the relevant product available in a form which is available for the body (Article 5 para 1 lit. C) of Regulation 1924/2006/EG). Also, the quantity of the product whose consumption can be reasonably expected to contain a significant amount of active substances as established by generally accepted scientific data to obtain the claimed nutritional or physiological effect (Article 5 para 1 lit. D) Regulation 1924/2006/EG).
Already this has nothing concrete, the defendant can present – so the District Court of Düsseldorf:
“Repeatedly, it lacks even the exact name of the substance that will cause the corresponding positive effect. Not the of the defendant so far, at least in part using concepts of art are suitable to describe the substances are defined. The actual composition of the individual products can be the talk Do not remove the defendant. These results, contrary to the defendant not buy from the Anlagen AG 10, AG 15, AG 18, AG 20 and AG 21 installations listed, as is clear from the headings on the mushrooms ” Shii take, “” Maitake “,” Shiny Lackporling “,” Chinese caterpillar fungus “and” Brasil Egerling. “should be available in any form, composition and quantity alleged active ingredients in the products distributed by the defendant capsules and teas, is the equipment not to report. ‘
Conclusion of the court:
“Then, if it is established by generally accepted scientific evidence that the presence of the substances to which the disputed statements relate, respectively, in those displaced by the defendant means a positive nutritional or physiological effect (Article 5 para 1 lit . a) of Regulation 1924/2006/EG), it does not it. ”
Finally: to distribute the burden of Glaubhaftmachungslast in connection with the Health Claims Regulation.
