Case C-195/14, Teekanne – selling raspberry vanilla tea without raspberries or vanilla [judgment 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:361]

If a company sells raspberry vanilla tea, then does it matter for the purposes of the EU’s food labelling Directive 2000/13/EC that it is made without raspberry or vanilla?

Facts
Teekanne is a company whose product range includes a number of fruit teas. One of their fruit teas is marketed under the name ‘Felix – raspberry vanilla adventure’.

The tea comes in boxes of teabags. The colour of the box is a deep red. Printed on the lid and the front panel of the box are pictures of raspberries which are sprinkled with vanilla flowers. The text on both the lid and front panel of the box states boldly that the tea is made with ‘only natural ingredients’ and that it is ‘fruit tea with natural aromas’. On the sides of the box, the caption reads: ‘mixed fruit tea with natural aromas – raspberry vanilla flavour’.

Teekanne received a complaint from a German regulatory body. According to that body, consumers were being misled; the tea contained neither vanilla or raspberry aroma nor was there even the slightest trace of vanilla or a raspberry to be found in the product.

Teekanne rejected the complaint. The list of ingredients on the back of the box said quite clearly that the natural aromas had the flavour of raspberries. This was correct because the aromas were not made from raspberries or vanilla, the aromas just had those tastes.

The ensuing litigation ended up at the German Supreme Court. It believed that resolving the dispute turned on a correct interpretation being given to the EU’s food labelling Directive 2000/13/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ [2003] L109/29).

Article 2(1) of the Directive states that the labelling and methods used must not:

(a) be such as could mislead the purchaser to a material degree, particularly:
(i) as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufacture or production;
(ii) by attributing to the foodstuff effects or properties which it does not possess;
(iii) by suggesting that the foodstuff possesses special characteristics when in fact all similar foodstuffs possess such characteristics;

And Article 3 provides:

1. In accordance with Articles 4 to 17 and subject to the exceptions contained therein, indication of the following particulars alone shall be compulsory on the labelling of foodstuffs:
(1) the name under which the product is sold;
(2) the list of ingredients;
…

The German Supreme Court thought that the labelling could mislead a purchaser but for various reasons, including the wording on the tiny list of ingredients on the back of the packaging, it decided to ask a question of the CJEU.

Question Referred
My unofficial translation of the question asked by the German Supreme Court reads:

1. Is it permitted for the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs to create the impression – through appearance, indication or visual depiction – that an ingredient exists despite the ingredient being non-existent and that this is only apparent from the ingredients listed pursuant to Article 3(1)(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC?