# C_2022472EN.01003002.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 12 September 2022 — L. VOF v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-591/22)

(2022/C 472/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L. VOF

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Questions referred

| 1. | What constitutes an exceptional case within the meaning of point 2.2.2.2(c) of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 200/2010 (1) of 10 March 2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Union target for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella serotypes in adult breeding flocks of Gallus gallus, where the competent authority has reason to question the correctness of a positive test result for salmonella obtained from a routine sampling at the initiative of the food business operator, so that the competent authority may decide to repeat the testing? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What constitutes an exceptional case within the meaning of point 2.2.2.2(c) of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 200/2010 (1) of 10 March 2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Union target for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella serotypes in adult breeding flocks of Gallus gallus, where the competent authority has reason to question the correctness of a positive test result for salmonella obtained from a routine sampling at the initiative of the food business operator, so that the competent authority may decide to repeat the testing?

| 2. | Are the following factors relevant in determining whether an exceptional case exists within the meaning of point 2.2.2.2(c) of the Annex to Regulation 200/2010:






  (i) | (multiple) negative test results for the relevant Salmonella type obtained from subsequent samples taken at the initiative of the food business operator; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Are the following factors relevant in determining whether an exceptional case exists within the meaning of point 2.2.2.2(c) of the Annex to Regulation 200/2010:

(i)

(multiple) negative test results for the relevant Salmonella type obtained from subsequent samples taken at the initiative of the food business operator;

| (ii) | the fact that only one of the two samples per house yielded a positive result for salmonella; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the fact that only one of the two samples per house yielded a positive result for salmonella;

| (iii) | the vaccination status of the (sampled) flock for the relevant Salmonella type in relation to the age of the flock; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

the vaccination status of the (sampled) flock for the relevant Salmonella type in relation to the age of the flock;

| (iv) | the number of houses with a positive result for salmonella in relation to the sampling frequency applicable to the relevant Salmonella type; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

the number of houses with a positive result for salmonella in relation to the sampling frequency applicable to the relevant Salmonella type;

| (v) | the history of the holding in terms of the prevalence of the Salmonella (zoonotic) type detected? |
| --- | --- |

(v)

the history of the holding in terms of the prevalence of the Salmonella (zoonotic) type detected?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2(i) is in the affirmative, how much time may be granted to a food business operator to carry out subsequent samplings (or to have them carried out) and submit the results of the investigation, before the competent authority proceeds to implement irreversible follow-up measures following the declaration of contamination? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2(i) is in the affirmative, how much time may be granted to a food business operator to carry out subsequent samplings (or to have them carried out) and submit the results of the investigation, before the competent authority proceeds to implement irreversible follow-up measures following the declaration of contamination?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 61, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2003 L 325, p. 1.

---