CJEU rules on repetition of nutritional information in labelling for Nestlé medical foods

The Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) delivered its judgement on 9 October 2025 in Nestlé Sverige AB v Miljönämnden i Helsingborgs kommun (Case C-315/24). The case concerned the interpretation of Articles 5(2)(g) and 6(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128, which supplements Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 on food for special medical purposes.

The dispute arose after the Environment Committee of Helsingborg required Nestlé to remove certain nutritional information from the front of the packaging of products marketed as food for special medical purposes. The information, which included the energy value and nutrient quantities per portion, was also contained in the mandatory nutrition declaration on the back of the packaging, expressed per 100 grams or 100 millilitres. The Committee held that this repetition contravened Article 6(2) of Delegated Regulation 2016/128, which prohibits repeating the mandatory nutrition declaration.

Nestlé argued that the front-of-pack figures were not a repetition but rather a supplementary description consistent with Article 5(2)(g) of the same regulation. That provision requires a description of the properties or characteristics that make a product suitable for its medical purpose.

The Swedish Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) referred two questions to the Court of Justice, seeking clarification on whether such front-of-pack nutrient information could be regarded as a permissible description under Article 5(2)(g), or whether it constituted a prohibited repetition under Article 6(2).

The Court examined both provisions in the context of the broader framework of EU food law, including Regulations (EU) No 1169/2011 and No 609/2013. It observed that food for special medical purposes, though distinct in nature, remains subject to the general food information rules unless expressly derogated. Article 5(2)(g) sets out additional particulars beyond the general labelling requirements, while Article 6(2) introduces a specific prohibition against repeating nutritional data already contained in the mandatory declaration.

The Court held that the description required under Article 5(2)(g) must provide substantive information about the product’s special formulation, nutrient modification, or rationale for its medical use. Merely restating numerical nutritional values—whether expressed per 100 g or per portion—does not amount to a description of properties or characteristics but is instead a repetition of existing data.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasised that the prohibition in Article 6(2) of Delegated Regulation 2016/128 represents a deliberate departure from the general food labelling rules. While Article 30(3) of Regulation 1169/2011 allows limited repetition of key nutritional information for ordinary foods to assist consumers, this rationale does not apply to foods intended for medical use. Such products are to be consumed under medical supervision and are not marketed to the general public in the same way as ordinary foodstuffs.

The Court further noted that allowing repeated information could mislead consumers regarding the nutritional profile of these products. The purpose of the regulatory framework is to ensure accurate and non-promotional labelling that supports the safe and informed use of foods designed for patients with specific medical or dietary needs.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that the indication of energy value and nutrient quantities per portion on the front of packaging, where the same information already appears per 100 g or per 100 ml in the mandatory nutrition declaration, is not a valid description under Article 5(2)(g) but an unlawful repetition under Article 6(2) of Delegated Regulation 2016/128.

The matter of costs was left to the referring national court.