2. Prolepses and axiomatic refutation of contra legem opinions
There are interpretations of the 2001 directive and 2002 regulation that run counter to what most legal experts would expect. However, this is the interpretation set out in the first paragraph.
These opposing interpretations relate to :
However, this last question has already been explained, as has the refutation of contrary opinions on this point.
Three divergent interpretations from three different organizations have been identified:
the report of the Conseil national de l'alimentation CNA (France) of July 5, 2004;
two memos from the Direction Générale de l'Alimentation...
You do not have access to this resource.
Exclusive to subscribers. 97% yet to be discovered!
Already subscribed?
Log in!
Ongoing reading
Prolepses and axiomatic refutation of contra legem opinions