ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2022:313
Parties
| Party | Representative |
|---|---|
| ‘Romega’ UAB | M. Endzinas, advokatas, and R. Čiupkevičius |
| Lithuanian Government | K. Dieninis and R. Dzikovič |
| Czech Government | M. Smolek, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil |
| Danish Government | M. Wolff, L. Teilgård and J. Nymann‑Lindegren (later M. Wolff) |
| Italian Government | G. Palmieri and L. Vignato |
| Hungarian Government | M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó |
| European Commission | W. Farrell, I. Galindo Martín and A. Steiblytė |
Judgment
-
The request concerns the interpretation of Article 1 and point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011) and of Article 14(1), (2) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.
-
The dispute is between ‘Romega’ UAB, a poultry meat wholesaler, and the Lithuanian State Food and Veterinary Service (Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba), which imposed a fine and ordered the withdrawal of poultry meat because certain Salmonella serotypes were detected.
Legal context
Regulation No 178/2002
- Article 1(1) sets out the aim and scope of EU food law – protection of human health and consumer interests.
- Article 14 provides the food‑safety requirements, stating that food shall not be placed on the market if it is unsafe (points 1‑2) and detailing the factors to be considered (points 3‑8).
Regulation No 2073/2005
- Recitals 1 and 3 stress the need for harmonised safety criteria for pathogenic microorganisms.
- Article 1 defines the subject‑matter and scope – microbiological criteria for certain microorganisms, with competent authorities allowed to undertake further sampling and analyses.
- Article 3(1) requires food business operators to ensure compliance with the criteria laid down in Annex I.
- Point 1.28 of Chapter 1, Annex I (as amended by Regulation 1086/2011) sets the limit for Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Enteritidis in fresh poultry meat (not detected in 25 g).
Regulation No 1086/2011
- Recitals 9‑10 justify focusing on the two serotypes (Enteritidis and Typhimurium) to reduce human salmonellosis while encouraging measures that also limit other serotypes.
Facts of the case
- On 19 October 2018, an urgent notice reported the detection of Salmonella Kentucky in fresh poultry meat imported from Poland. An inspection of Romega found this serotype.
- On 4 April 2019 the Lithuanian authority fined Romega EUR 540 for breaches of Article 14(1) and (2)(a‑b) of Regulation 178/2002.
- On 12 April 2019 the authority also detected Salmonella Infantis and ordered Romega to cease placing the meat on the market and to withdraw and destroy the already‑placed product.
- Romega appealed the decisions, arguing that point 1.28 only obliges the authority to act when Salmonella Enteritidis or Typhimurium are present, not other serotypes.
- The Lithuanian authority contended that, under Article 1 of Regulation 2073/2005, it may undertake additional sampling for other Salmonella serotypes and that the presence of unlisted serotypes can still render the food unsafe.
Questions referred
Whether Article 1 of Regulation 2073/2005, read together with Article 14(8) of Regulation 178/2002, confers on Member‑State competent authorities the discretion to consider fresh poultry meat that complies with point 1.28 unsafe when it is contaminated by Salmonella serotypes other than Enteritidis and Typhimurium.
Court’s reasoning
- Article 1 of Regulation 2073/2005 authorises competent authorities to undertake further sampling and analyses for other microorganisms, not limited to those listed in Annex I.
- Recital 3 confirms that the criteria in Annex I do not preclude authorities from checking for additional pathogens.
- Article 14(8) of Regulation 178/2002 expressly allows competent authorities to take appropriate measures (including withdrawal) when there are reasons to suspect that, despite conformity with specific provisions, the food is unsafe.
- The Court interprets the provisions broadly to protect public health, allowing authorities to act on the detection of pathogenic Salmonella serotypes other than those listed in point 1.28.
Judgment
The Court answers that Article 1 of Regulation 2073/2005, read in conjunction with Article 14(8) of Regulation 178/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member‑State competent authority may regard as unsafe within the meaning of Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation 178/2002 fresh poultry meat in which pathogenic microorganisms other than the Salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Annex I have been detected.
Costs
The decision on costs is left to the national court; costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court are not recoverable.
Language of the case: Lithuanian (original); the judgment is provided in English.