Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:774
Date: 2025-10-09
Language of the case: French

Translation C-483/24 - 1 
Case C-483/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
10 July 2024 
Referring court: 
Cour de cassation (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
26 June 2024 
Appellant: 
Procureur général près la Cour d’appel de Liège 
Respondent: 
Aldi SA 
      
Cour de cassation de Belgique 
(Court of Cassation, Belgium) 
Judgment 
[OMISSIS] 
LE PROCUREUR GENERAL PRES LA COUR D’APPEL DE LIEGE 
[Public Prosecutor attached to the Cour d’appel de Liège] (Court of Appeal, 
Liège, Belgium), the appellant on a point of law, 
v 
ALDI, a publicly owned company with its seat in Vaux-sur-Sûre, parc artisanal de 
Villeroux, 4, 
the accused, 
the respondent on a point of law, 
[OMISSIS] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 26. 6. 2024 – CASE C-483/24 
 
2  
I. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 
The appeal on a point of law is directed against a judgment delivered on 
12 February 2024 by the cour d’appel de Liège, chambre correctionnelle (Court of 
Appeal of Liège, Criminal Chamber, Belgium). 
[OMISSIS]. 
II. FACTS 
1. Finding that the respondent infringed EU hygiene and food safety rules, the 
Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (AFSCA), following an 
inspection of shops and a warehouse operated by the respondent, recorded 
infringements relating to the following: 
- the presence of droppings and dead rodents; 
- no system of checks at the place of entry of products delivered; 
- the presence of nibbled and contaminated products; 
- the risk of contamination and the presence of dirt. 
2. The respondent was then prosecuted by the public prosecutor for the 
following offences: 
Cause of action I: [OMISSIS] 
A. Infringement of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs and 
Annex II thereto, and Article 9(3) of the Royal Decree of 22 February 2001 
organising checks to be carried out by the Federal Agency for the Safety of the 
Food Chain and amending various provisions (‘Royal Decree of 22 February 
2001’), for not having respected general and specific hygiene rules as a food 
business operator carrying out any stage of production, processing and distribution 
of food, in the present case, in particular: 
1. On 25 November, in Florenville, the presence of goods nibbled by pests for 
sale in the shop (3 packets of flour, Albona, 1 kg). One packet was practically 
empty even though the AFSCA did not notice any flour on the shelf or in the 
stockroom. That packet was contaminated with droppings and urine (clumped 
flour), and also with hair [OMISSIS]; 
2. On 25 November 2021, in Florenville, no system of checks at the place of 
entry of products delivered. The presence of goods nibbled by pests for sale in the 
shop [OMISSIS]; 
3. On 6 July 2022, in Florenville, the presence of rodent droppings in the 
corner of the shop next to the fridge section and the emergency exit [OMISSIS]; 
ALDI 
 
3 
4. On 6 July 2022, in Florenville, the presence of a product nibbled by pests for 
sale on the shelves [OMISSIS]; 
5. On 6 July 2022, in Florenville, no system of checks at the place of entry of 
products delivered. We note the presence of a product unfit for consumption 
available to the consumer on the shelves without it having been identified as such 
and stored as a non-compliant product [OMISSIS]; 
6. On 12 January 2022, in Butgenbach, the presence of mouse droppings 
throughout the commercial surface (stockroom floor, shop floor, shop shelves) 
and the presence of dead mice in the stockroom [OMISSIS]; 
7. On 12 January 2022, in Butgenbach, the risk of contamination: the presence 
of dirt in the shop’s freezer units and the presence of dirt in the reusable crates [for 
fruits and vegetables] in a shop refrigerator [OMISSIS]; 
8. On 29 June 2022, in Butgenbach, the presence of mouse droppings in 
several places around the shop and in the stockroom; on a wooden pallet in the 
stockroom, on and under several pallets in the shop and the presence of a dead 
mouse on the floor of the stockroom [OMISSIS]; 
9. On 29 June 2022, in Butgenbach, the presence of dirt on the floor of the 
stockroom, where the cleaning equipment is stored (especially in the drain) 
[OMISSIS]; 
10. On 8 February 2022, in Eynatten, the presence of mouse droppings on the 
floor of the shop [OMISSIS]; 
11. On 8 February 2022, in Eynatten, the presence of dirt in the corners, on the 
floor (especially in the stockroom) [OMISSIS]; 
12. On 29 June 2022, in Eynatten, the presence of mouse droppings in several 
places in the shop and in the stockroom. In the shop: on the floor, shelves and on 
the foodstuffs. In the stockroom: on the floor next to the waste bins, on an empty 
wooden pallet [OMISSIS]; 
13. On 29 June 2022, in Eynatten, the presence of dirt on the floor in the 
stockroom, where the cleaning equipment is stored (especially in the drain) 
[OMISSIS]; 
14. On 4 February 2022, in Athus, traces (droppings and urine) of pests in the 
shop and in the stockroom (under the chiller cabinets near trap zone No 5 and 
No 6, in the stockroom near trap zone No 7, the outside door). In addition, traces 
of pests around non-food pallets (textiles, …) stored in the stockroom. Other 
traces (droppings) of pests in the bakery section. [OMISSIS]; 
15. On 4 February 2022, in Athus, the presence of nibbled and soiled products 
for sale on the shelves, in different locations (5 units, Albona flour, 1 kg,…, 1 8-
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 26. 6. 2024 – CASE C-483/24 
 
4  
pack individually wrapped délipain croissants…, 1 unit L15…, 1 6-pack of 
délipain pains au chocolat…); [OMISSIS];  
16. On 4 February 2022, in Athus, no system of checks on receipt of goods as 
required for the purposes of self-monitoring and as the AFSCA has already 
pointed out, on several occasions, in other ALDI shops and at the Vaux-sur-Sûre 
headquarters as a result of infringements already identified in the past, 
[OMISSIS]; 
17. On 6 July 2022, in Athus, the presence of rodent droppings in the stockroom 
on a ledge alongside the waste sorting bins and in the shop behind a pallet in the 
petfood section next to a trap [OMISSIS]; 
18. On 7 February 2022, in Vaux-sur-Sûre, the presence of pest (rodents) 
droppings in different locations in the warehouse. The presence of three dead 
mice: two present in the fresh produce area (behind a metal rail where the pallets 
are prepared for the various branches…), one present in the dry foods area next to 
pains au chocolat and croissants (…). An inspection carried out by the pest control 
company RENTOKILL preceded the [AFSCA’s] inspection [OMISSIS]; 
19. On 29 June 2022, in Bastogne, the presence of rodent droppings behind the 
oven in the bakery section, and in several other locations in the stockroom 
[OMISSIS]; 
20. On 29 June 2022, in Vaux-sur-Sûre, the presence of rodent droppings 
around the doors of several loading bays (21 to 43). The presence of two dead 
mice crushed in the door closing mechanism of loading bays 27 and 39 
[OMISSIS]; 
21. On 13 July 2022, in Eynatten, the presence of mouse droppings on six 
shelves of the shop (next to foodstuffs) [OMISSI]. 
Cause of action II: [OMISSIS]: 
In conjunction, in Lontzen, on 3 September 2020, infringement of Article 4(2) of 
Regulation No 852/2004 and paragraph 4 of Chapter 9 of Annex II thereto, and 
Article 9(3) of the Royal Decree of 22 February 2001, for not having respected 
general and specific hygiene rules as a food business operator carrying out any 
stage of production, processing and distribution of food, in the present case, to the 
presence of mouse droppings on the floor of the stockroom and of the shop. 
3. By judgment of 15 March 2023, the tribunal correctionnel du Luxembourg, 
division Neufchâteau, (Criminal Court, Luxembourg, Belgium) acquitted the 
respondent of all the charges against it. 
The appellant lodged an appeal against that decision. 
ALDI 
 
5 
The judgment under appeal upholds the judgment of the tribunal correctionnel 
and, accordingly, acquits the respondent of all the charges against it as follows: 
- charges A3, A6, A8, A10, A12, A14, A17, A18, A19, A20 and A21 of 
[[OMISSIS] ‘cause I’], and the single charge of [[OMISSIS] ‘cause 
II’] (presence of droppings and dead rodents) ; 
- charges A2, A5 and A16 of [[OMISSIS] ‘cause I’] (no system of 
checks at the place of entry of products supplied); 
- charges Al, A4 and A15 of [[OMISSIS] ‘cause I’] (presence of nibbled 
and contaminated products); 
- causes A7, A9, A11 and A13 of [[OMISSIS] ‘cause I’] (risk of 
contamination and the presence of dirt). 
III. DECISION OF THE COURT 
Plea of inadmissibility directed against the ground of appeal: 
[OMISSIS]. [Rejection of the plea of inadmissibility] 
Ground of appeal: 
5. The ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 4 and Annex II of 
Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, and Article 9 of the Royal Decree of 22 February 
2001. 
The ground criticises the appeal court for having considered that the 
aforementioned provisions of EU law impose obligations to use best endeavours 
only on food business operators and that the mere presence of droppings and 
traces of pests within the shops and warehouse in question does not in itself 
amount to an infringement of those provisions. 
6. Article 4(2) of Regulation No 852/2004 states that food business operators 
carrying out any stage of production, processing and distribution of food are to 
comply with the general hygiene requirements laid down in Annex II and any 
specific requirements provided for in that regulation. 
Paragraph 2(c) of Chapter 1 of Annex II provides that the layout, design, 
construction, siting and size of food premises are to permit good food hygiene 
practices, including protection against contamination and, in particular, pest 
control. 
According to paragraph 1(a) of Chapter V of Annex II, all articles, fittings and 
equipment with which food comes into contact are to be effectively cleaned and, 
where necessary, disinfected. Cleaning and disinfection are to take place at a 
frequency sufficient to avoid any risk of contamination. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 26. 6. 2024 – CASE C-483/24 
 
6  
Paragraph 2 of Chapter IX of Annex II states that raw materials and all ingredients 
stored in a food business are to be kept in appropriate conditions designed to 
prevent harmful deterioration and protect them from contamination. 
According to paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II, at all stages of production, 
processing and distribution, food is to be protected against any contamination 
likely to render the food unfit for human consumption, injurious to health or 
contaminated in such a way that it would be unreasonable to expect it to be 
consumed in that state. 
Paragraph 4 of Chapter IX of Annex II provides that adequate procedures are to be 
in place to control pests. 
7. According to the court of appeal, the EU legislature did not intend to impose 
on food business operators carrying out any stage of production, processing and 
distribution of food an obligation as to the result to be achieved in terms of pest 
control. In support of its decision, the court of appeal invoked: 
- the HACCP principles set out in Article 5 of Regulation No 852/2004 
which consist in the application of hazard analysis and critical control 
points; 
- Commission Notice (2022/C 355/01) on the implementation of food 
safety management systems covering Good Hygiene Practices and 
procedures based on the HACCP principles, including the 
facilitation/flexibility of the implementation in certain food businesses. 
The court of appeal inferred from this that EU rules impose on wholesale and 
retail food business operators only a set of obligations to use best endeavours such 
that the finding by the national administrative authority of the presence of 
droppings and traces of pests in shops and warehouses does not in itself constitute 
an infringement of aforementioned EU rules. 
8. By contrast, the appellant considers that the EU legislature did not simply 
set out, in terms of pest control, an objective of hygiene and food safety that 
operators must aim towards. Hygiene and food safety rules would be rendered 
meaningless by such an interpretation. According to the appellant, the only 
latitude left to operators is in the choice of practices to be adopted, not the result 
to be achieved. It considers that the fact that the national administrative authority 
notes the presence of droppings and traces of pests is therefore sufficient to 
establish that the hygiene and foods safety requirements have not been met, 
without that authority being required to demonstrate that the operator has failed to 
take all available measures to control pests. 
9. Since the hygiene and food safety requirements have their source in EU 
legislation, it is appropriate to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
the question set out in the operative part of this judgment as to the scope of 
Article 4(2) of Regulation No 852/2004 and of Annex II thereto. 
ALDI 
 
7 
ON THOSE GROUNDS, 
THE COURT 
Stays the proceedings until the Court of Justice of the European Union has given a 
preliminary ruling on the following question: 
Do the obligations laid down in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of 
foodstuffs, in Annex II thereto and, more specifically, in paragraph 2(c) of 
Chapter I, paragraph 1(a) of Chapter V, and paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Chapter IX, 
impose on wholesale and retail food business operators an obligation as to the 
result to be achieved, such that the presence of droppings and traces of pests in 
shops and warehouses is sufficient, except in cases of force majeure, some 
external cause or unavoidable mistake, to establish an infringement of that 
regulation, or are food business operators subject only to an obligation to use best 
endeavours, that is to say to do everything possible to control pests, such that the 
mere finding by the national administrative authority of the presence of droppings 
and traces of pests in shops and warehouses is not sufficient to establish an 
infringement of that regulation? 
[OMISSIS]