Allergen information: liability in the catering sector

Information on allergens is not merely a matter of good customer service practice; it is a mechanism for safeguarding public health. In the catering environment, where consumers are unaware of the ingredients contained in the food they are served, the absence of clear and accessible information can turn an ordinary dining choice into a serious health risk.

The legal order treats this issue both as a matter of food safety and as a matter of individual rights. Consumers are entitled to know, in a timely and effective manner, whether the food they are about to consume contains substances capable of causing allergies or intolerances.

Within this framework, the European regulatory regime governing the provision of food information for consumers operates as a bridge between public protection and private legal claims.

The obligation to provide information, particularly in relation to allergens, is not limited to prepacked foods but extends to mass catering establishments, where such information must be provided in a clear and usable manner prior to consumption.

When this obligation is breached and damage ensues, a fundamental question arises: does the breach give rise only to administrative or criminal consequences, or does it also generate an actionable right to compensation for the injured party?

How the Court of Appeal ruled

In its judgment in Civil Appeal No.130/2019, dated 10.12.2025, the Cyprus Court of Appeal examined a case in which a customer consumed food at a hotel restaurant and suffered an allergic shock due to peanuts contained in one of the dishes. The customer was transferred to the emergency department on the day and visited a medical centre again the following day.

The court of first instance awarded him €1.000 in general damages and €10.000 in special damages, finding that the menu failed to provide the required allergen labelling/information, resulting in the consumption of a hazardous ingredient.

A pivotal aspect of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning concerned the circumstances under which the breach of a statutory obligation gives rise to civil liability. The court relied on established case law holding that not every breach of a statutory duty automatically creates a right of action.

The critical distinction lies in whether the legislative provision imposes a duty solely in the public interest, or whether it is also intended to protect a specific class of persons, thereby conferring a private law remedy. In other words, the court examines the purpose of the regulation, the type of harm it seeks to prevent, and whether the claimant belongs to the class of persons that the regulation aims to protect.

The Court of Appeal adopted the substance of the criteria articulated in prior jurisprudence: (a) whether the damage suffered is of the type the legislation seeks to prevent; (b) whether the injured party belongs to the protected class; and (c) whether the specific remedies provided by the legislation are sufficient, or whether civil compensation is required.

This reasoning led the court to conclude that the obligation to provide allergen information is not a general prohibition without a specific addressee, but a protective rule with the consumer as its direct beneficiary, enabling informed decision-making prior to consumption.

European regulation

In applying these principles to the specific context, the Court of Appeal placed significant emphasis on Articles 9, 21 and 44 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. It stressed that the declaration of allergenic substances, such as peanuts, which are listed in the relevant Annex, constitutes mandatory information.

In respect of non-prepacked foods served in mass catering establishments, this obligation cannot be discharged merely through oral information upon request when written information is absent.

The breach was found to be causally linked to the outcome, the customer was unaware that the dish contained peanuts, consumed it and consequently suffered an allergic shock.

Of particular interest is the court’s reasoning that the protection of health, as an objective of the EU legislature, renders it unlikely that such a serious obligation would be imposed without affording individuals the possibility of personal legal protection when harm occurs.

In this context, reference was also made to the fundamental dimension of health as enshrined in Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, reinforcing the view that the regulation engages an individual right and not merely a matter of administrative compliance.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that, based on the facts established before the court of first instance, there existed (a) a violation of an individual right, (b) a sufficiently serious breach, and (c) a clear causal link between the breach and the damage suffered, thereby grounding an actionable right to compensation.

Compliance with allergen information requirements is not a mere menu formality; it is a cornerstone of prevention. Where the omission of such information leads to actual harm, it may translate into civil liability.