It is important to use necessary means in safeguarding consumer protection proportionately with the objective. Aiming to ensure consumers are properly informed about product content is legitimate. Appropriate labeling informs consumers about the ingredients, enabling consumers to decide about consumption themselves. Cassis de Dijon has a parallel set of justifications to Article 36, called mandatory requirements. These justifications don’t apply to distinctly applicable measures. In Cassis de Dijon mandatory requirements are when ‘Obstacles to movement...
It is important to use necessary means in safeguarding consumer protection proportionately with the objective. Aiming to ensure consumers are properly informed about product content is legitimate. Appropriate labeling informs consumers about the ingredients, enabling consumers to decide about consumption themselves.
Cassis de Dijon has a parallel set of justifications to Article 36, called mandatory requirements. These justifications don’t apply to distinctly applicable measures. In Cassis de Dijon mandatory requirements are when ‘Obstacles to movement within the community resulting from disparities between the national laws relating to the marketing of the products in question must be accepted in so far as those provisions may be recognized as being necessary in order to satisfy mandatory movements…relating in particular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision the protection of public health the fairness of commercial transactions and the defense of the consumer’
The authority tries to justify the labeling requirement by arguing it is for consumer protection. This is covered by Cassis de Dijon.
A case highlighting the importance of protecting the consumer is Estee Lauder.
Thus, labeling this product in Spanish is justifiable under Cassis de Dijon’s, mandatory requirements, as its proportionate in protecting consumer interests and ensuring market transparency.
