CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 septembre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 111 August-September 2008 Ooms v. France - 38126/06 Decision 25.9.2008 [Section V] Article 7 Article 7-1 Nullum crimen sine lege Conviction for sale of adulterated product, which had been notified to the Belgian authorities, containing an additive prohibited by Community regulations incorporated into French law: inadmissible   The applicant was manager of a French company which sold food supplements, including effervescent tablets. According to the applicant, the same tablets had previously been sold as food supplements in Belgium, with the proper authorisation, after verification of their conformity with Community law on such products. In support of that argument he submitted a document issued by the General Food Inspectorate acknowledging receipt of a notification file and assigning a number to the product. The advertising for the tablets in France attracted the attention of the French fair trade, consumer protection and anti-fraud authority, whose investigations revealed the presence of sodium benzoate in the tablets, in violation of Community directive 95/2/CE, which authorised the substance only in liquid food supplements. The French authorities contacted the person who had succeeded the applicant as manager of the company; they also contacted the Belgian Food Inspectorate, which saw to it that the necessary action was taken in Belgium. In France criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, the new manager and the company, for misleading advertising and for displaying, proposing for sale and selling foods for human consumption which they knew to be adulterated, toxic or otherwise unfit for consumption. The criminal court found them guilty as charged. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment and the Court of Cassation rejected the defendants’ appeal on points of law. Inadmissible under Article 7 § 1   – The Court pointed out that the law must clearly define offences and the corresponding penalties, which it had clearly done in the instant case. Community directive 95/2/CE, as incorporated into French law, stipulated the authorised uses of sodium benzoate. The applicant, who did not dispute that under French positive law a product could be adulterated by the addition of an illegal substance to it, could have foreseen that by selling a product containing a prohibited additive he risked being prosecuted and sentenced under Article L. 213-3 of the Consumer Code for selling an adulterated food product. In any event, the applicant’s submissions were unfounded as he could not claim to have had a sales permit issued by the Belgian authorities, or any document issued by them certifying the conformity of the product with the legislation in force: manifestly ill-founded .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes