Furthermore, the manufacturers of food supplement also challenged Articles 3, 4(1) and 15 (b) of the EC rulings, which state that only food supplements which comply with aforesaid directives may be sold within the European Community and the vitamins and minerals specified under the directives may be utilised. The directive further stated that effective August 1, 2005, products which did not comply with the directives should be prohibited.3 The court has dealt with these issues in the past as for instance in the case of Swedish Match and Arnold Andre4 and has made its decisions based on the judgments brought forth on that particular case.
The EC Directives define 'food supplements' as products or items whose purpose is to supplement the daily diet, foodstuffs which contain concentrated nutrients or materials having nutritional or physiological results. These supplements are either marketed in isolation or come in dosage forms, which include capsules, tablets or pills. One of the disputed directives state that only 'vitamins and minerals' specified 'in the forms listed in Annex I and in the forms listed in Annex II maybe used for the manufacture of food supplement5. The court riling and the EC directives likewise invoked treaties signed by the member states of the EC. The Directive provided in Article 15 also affirmed that 'Member States shall bring into the force of laws' and other aforesaid stipulations needed to abide by the Directive6. The manufacturers of health foods asked the courts to commence proceedings on their claim that the stipulations specified in Articles 3 and 4 (1) and paragraph (b) of Article 15 of the Directive as contestable and the August 1 prohibitions imposed on the manufacturers do not conform to the EC law and should therefore be deemed null and void. The Queens Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales heard resumed with proceedings while the court restricted the scope of the case to Articles 3, 4(1) and 15 (b) specified in the directives. The court's legal basis during the case proceedings was specified in Article 95 EC but the claimants argue that this could not be utilized as the foundation of the rulings or the directives as these do not improve the conditions that prevail in a free market economy. The claimants contend that the prohibition, which aims to protect the consumers and the welfare of the public, becomes inappropriate and only shows abuse of authority because according the EC Article 152 (4, c), the community does not have the authority to imposed universal and harmonized legal procedures and regulations on public health. The manufacturers claim that Article 95 is an incorrect invocation of the EC law and asserted that the stipulations of the community is an infraction of the principles of 'free movements of goods' within the boundaries of the community. The court countered that the aim of the Directives is to enhance the prevailing situations for the proper movement of the internal market by abolishing disparity in national