idity and the legal basis of the said directives.2 The manufacturers invoked the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality, right to property and the right to conduct economic activity under Articles 28 and 30 EC and the European Convention Human Rights Protocol, which specify provisions on basic right to property and the right to conduct economic activity freely. The claimants also invoked infraction of Article 253 EC also referred to as the duty to give reasons. 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