Language of document :

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol — Austria) — Ute Reindl, representative of MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH, with liability v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

(Case C-443/13) 1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws on animal health — Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 — Annex I — Microbiological criteria applicable to foodstuffs — Salmonella in fresh poultry meat — Failure to comply with microbiological criteria found at the distribution stage — National legislation imposing a penalty on a food business operator active only at the stage of retail sale — Compatibility with EU law — Effective, dissuasive and proportionate nature of the penalty)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ute Reindl, representative of MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH, with liability

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

Operative part of the judgment

1.    Annex II E. 1 to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that fresh poultry meat from the animal populations listed in Annex I to that regulation, must satisfy the microbiological criterion mentioned in Annex I, Chapter I, Row l.28 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011, at all the stages of distribution including the retail sale stage;

2.    EU law, in particular Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety and Regulation No 2073/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, it does not preclude national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a penalty on a food business operator which is active only at the distribution stage for placing foodstuff on the market, on account of the failure to comply with the microbiological criterion laid down in Annex I, Chapter I, Row 1.28 of Regulation No 2073/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011. It is for the national court to determine whether the penalty at issue in the main proceedings observes the principle of proportionality referred to in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 178/2002.

____________

1 OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.