Opinion of Mrs Advocate General Rozès delivered on5 October 1983

1 Translated from the French.

2 Article 1, Point 1, and Article 2.

3 It was, moreover, supplemented by a second Counci directive bearing the same title (75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975), and by a directive on the approximator of the laws of Member States in respect of the testinį of proprietary medicinal products (75/318/EEC, alsc of 20 May 1975).

4 Article 3.

5 Article 4, Points 5 and 8.

6 First paragraph of Article 5.

7 The making of a medical diagnosis may be ignored in the context of a case dealing with vitamins, which clearly cannot be administered for that purpose.

8 Second paragraph of Article 1, Point 2, of the directive.

9 Directive 77/94/EEC.

10 See my Opinion of 10 February 1983 in Case 172/82 (the so-called waste oil case), [1983] ECR 555, at p. 568.

11 Tta Kaas/abriek case was concerned with a food preservative called nisin.

12 Judgment of 5 February 1981, Kaasfabriek Eyssen, Case 53/80, [1981] ECR 409, at p. 423 (paragraph 16).

13 Second sentence of Article 36.

14 Whilst 1 clearly cannot pass judgment on the vitamin preparations of L. van Bennekom, I have on the other hand been able to establish that, broadly speaking, preparations of that kind are medicinal products within the meaning of the directive.