Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) – 24 September 2025
Case T‑354/24 – Mowi Poland S.A. v European Commission
Public health – Specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Point 3(e) of the Annex to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1141 – Action for annulment – Locus standi – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Concept of ‘frozen product’ – Lack of consultation with EFSA – Article 13 of Regulation No 853/2004
Parties
Applicant: Mowi Poland S.A., established in Ustka (Poland), represented by Z. Kiedacz and K. Puchalska, lawyers
Defendant: European Commission, represented by M. Owsiany‑Hornung, acting as Agent
Intervener: French Republic, represented by B. Fodda, B. Travard and P. Chansou, acting as Agents
Judges: M.J. Costeira (Rapporteur, President), U. Öberg, P. Zilgalvis
Registrar: V. Di Bucci
Judgment
- By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of point 3(e) of the Annex to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1141 of 14 December 2023 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (the “contested provision”).
Background to the dispute
-
The applicant is a company registered under Polish law specialising in the processing of smoked salmon.
-
To slice the smoked salmon, the applicant uses the “stiffening” technique, which consists of cutting smoked salmon fillets by lowering their initial temperature to a level between –7 °C and –14 °C.
-
On 14 December 2023 the European Commission adopted Delegated Regulation 2024/1141, which adds the following point to Chapter VII of Section VIII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004:
“4. Where fresh fishery products, thawed unprocessed fishery products, or processed fishery products need to be at a temperature lower than that of melting ice to permit the use of machines that slice or cut fishery products, they may be maintained at such technologically required temperature for a period of time as short as possible and in any case not exceeding 96 hours. Storage and transport at that temperature shall not be allowed. Where frozen fishery products need to be at a temperature higher than –18 °C to permit the use of machines that slice or cut fishery products, they may be maintained at such technologically required temperature for a period of time as short as possible and in any case not exceeding 96 hours. Storage and transport at that temperature shall not be allowed.”
Forms of order sought
-
The applicant claims that the Court should:
– annul the contested provision;
– order the Commission to pay the costs.
-
The Commission contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the action;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
-
The French Republic contends that the Court should dismiss the action.
Law
Preliminary considerations on hygiene rules applicable to fishery products
8–15. The relevant legal framework includes Regulations (EC) No 178/2002, No 852/2004 and No 853/2004, and the annexes setting specific hygiene requirements for fishery products. The contested provision modifies Chapter VII of Section VIII of Annex III by adding the 96‑hour limit for temperature‑controlled slicing (“stiffening”).
Whether the action is admissible
16–57. The Commission, supported by the French Republic, challenges the admissibility on the grounds of lack of standing and lack of interest. The Court analyses:
-
Standing (locus standi) – The contested provision is a regulatory act of general application, of direct concern to the applicant, and does not leave discretion to the addressees. The Court finds that the provision directly affects the applicant’s legal situation and meets the criteria for standing.
-
Interest – Annulment of the provision would relieve the applicant from the imposed 96‑hour limit, thus conferring a concrete advantage. The action is therefore admissible.
The merits
62–93. The applicant raises four pleas in law:
- Infringement of Article 290 TFEU;
- Breach of the principle of proportionality (Art 5(4) TEU);
- Infringement of Article 10(1) Regulation No 853/2004;
- Failure to consult EFSA contrary to Article 13 Regulation No 853/2004.
The Court first examines the fourth plea. It finds that the contested provision has a significant impact on public health because the 96‑hour limit concerns the safety of smoked salmon processed by stiffening. Accordingly, the Commission was required to consult EFSA before adopting the provision. The lack of such consultation renders the provision unlawful.
Costs
-
Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party (the Commission) must bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.
-
Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the intervening French Republic bears its own costs.
Order
On those grounds, the General Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby:
-
Annuls point 3(e) of the Annex to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1141 of 14 December 2023 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004;
-
Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mowi Poland S.A.;
-
Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
| Costeira | Öberg | Zilgalvis |
|---|---|---|
| Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 24 September 2025. |
Language of the case: Polish.