# C_2021431EN.01001601.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, Cleveland Meat Company Ltd v Food Standards Agency

(Case C-579/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of health - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Article 5(2) - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Article 54(3) - Hygiene rules applicable to food of animal origin - Post-mortem inspection of the carcass and offal - Official veterinarian - Health marking - Refusal - Meat declared unfit for human consumption - Right of appeal against a decision of the official veterinarian - Effective judicial protection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2021/C 431/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: The Queen, on the application of: Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, Cleveland Meat Company Ltd

Defendant: Food Standards Agency

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, and Regulation No 882/2004 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, where an official veterinarian refuses to affix a health mark to a carcass and the owner of that carcass does not concur with that decision, the official veterinarian must bring the matter before a court so that the latter may give a decision on the merits and on the basis of the evidence of experts called by each side whether a carcass fails to comply with food safety requirements, without being able formally to annul decisions of the official veterinarian or order the lifting of the effects of such decisions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, and Regulation No 882/2004 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, where an official veterinarian refuses to affix a health mark to a carcass and the owner of that carcass does not concur with that decision, the official veterinarian must bring the matter before a court so that the latter may give a decision on the merits and on the basis of the evidence of experts called by each side whether a carcass fails to comply with food safety requirements, without being able formally to annul decisions of the official veterinarian or order the lifting of the effects of such decisions.

| 2. | Article 54 of Regulation No 882/2004, read in conjunction with recital 43 thereof and in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation according to which the decision made by the official veterinarian, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 854/2004, as amended by Regulation No 882/2004, not to affix a health mark to a carcass may be subject to limited judicial review only, in the context of which the court seised may annul that decision on any ground rendering it unlawful, including where that veterinarian has acted for a purpose other than that for which his or her powers have been conferred on him or her, fails to apply the correct legal test or reaches a decision that is irrational or has no sufficient evidential basis. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 54 of Regulation No 882/2004, read in conjunction with recital 43 thereof and in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation according to which the decision made by the official veterinarian, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 854/2004, as amended by Regulation No 882/2004, not to affix a health mark to a carcass may be subject to limited judicial review only, in the context of which the court seised may annul that decision on any ground rendering it unlawful, including where that veterinarian has acted for a purpose other than that for which his or her powers have been conferred on him or her, fails to apply the correct legal test or reaches a decision that is irrational or has no sufficient evidential basis.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---