ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
7 February 2014 (*)
(Expedited procedure)
In Case C‑453/13,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 16 July 2013, received at the Court on 12 August 2013, in the proceedings
The Queen, on the application of:
Newby Foods Ltd,
v
Food Standards Agency,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
Having regard to the proposal from D. Šváby, Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Advocate General, M. Szpunar,
makes the following
Order
1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of paragraphs 1.14 and 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 55).
2        The request has been made in proceedings between Newby Foods Ltd and the Food Standards Agency (‘the FSA’) concerning a decision of the FSA published on 4 April 2012, entitled ‘Moratorium on desinewed meat’ (‘the Moratorium’).
3        Among the definitions set out in Annex I to Regulation No 853/2004 are the following:
‘…
1.14. “Mechanically separated meat” or “MSM” means the product obtained by removing meat from flesh-bearing bones after boning or from poultry carcas[s]es, using mechanical means resulting in the loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure.
1.15. “Meat preparations” means fresh meat, including meat that has been reduced to fragments, which has had foodstuffs, seasonings or additives added to it or which has undergone processes insufficient to modify the internal muscle fibre structure of the meat and thus to eliminate the characteristics of fresh meat.
…’
4        It emerges from the order for reference that Newby Foods has developed a machine that forces bones into contact with one another in such a way that most of the meat remaining on the bones after de-boning is removed. The material obtained in that way is passed through a perforated plate with 10 mm diameter apertures, and then through a mincer with 3 mm diameter apertures.
5        The end product – known as ‘desinewed meat’ because a substantial amount of the sinew and gristle is removed during the mincing operations – looks like ordinary mincemeat. Produced in the United Kingdom since the mid-1990s, it has been exported to various Member States as meat preparations.
6        In fact, according to Newby Foods, the product obtained by that procedure must be categorised as ‘meat preparations’ within the meaning of paragraph 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation No 853/2004 and not as ‘“mechanically separated meat” or “MSM”’ within the meaning of paragraph 1.14 of that annex. It has not undergone a substantial loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure, whereas that is the essential characteristic of mechanically separated meat. Moreover, it rarely contains bone fragments, bone skin or bone marrow.
7        The significance of that categorisation is, in essence, financial: the commercial value of products categorised as MSM is considerably lower than that of products categorised as meat preparations. Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 722/2007 of 25 June 2007 (OJ 2007 L 164, p.7), the use of bones or bone-in cuts of bovine, ovine and caprine animals for the production of MSM is prohibited in all Member States. Furthermore, in accordance with Chapters II and III of Section V of Annex III to Regulation No 853/2004, the requirements relating to raw materials and the hygiene rules to be observed during and after production differ according to whether MSM or meat preparations are involved.
8        Following a number of contacts with the European Commission and an audit carried out by the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office, the FSA adopted the Moratorium. This prohibits the production of desinewed meat from cows and sheep and requires desinewed meat produced from pork and poultry carcasses to be labelled as MSM. However, the FSA maintains that desinewed meat must be categorised as meat preparations and that it does not pose a risk to public health.
9        Hearing the action brought by Newby Foods contesting the Moratorium, the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (‘the High Court’), formed the view that an interpretation of paragraphs 1.14 and 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation No 853/2004 is necessary for it to be able to adjudicate the case pending before it. Accordingly, the High Court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
10      By letters of 1 and 11 October 2013, received at the Court Registry on 16 October 2013, the High Court requested that its order for reference be dealt with under the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.
11      Article 105(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure provides that, at the request of the referring court or tribunal or, exceptionally, of his own motion, the President of the Court may, where the nature of the case requires that it be dealt with within a short time, decide, after hearing the Judge-Rapporteur and the Advocate General, that a reference for a preliminary ruling is to be determined in accordance with an expedited procedure derogating from the provisions of those Rules.
12      In support of its application for an expedited procedure, the High Court puts forward a number of reasons, the essence of which may be summarised as follows.
13      According to the High Court, the interpretation of paragraph 1.14 of Annex I to Regulation No 853/2004 is of interest to meat producers in all Member States. Several of those producers favour an interpretation of that provision which is contrary to the interpretation adopted by the Commission and, as a consequence, identical meat products (products known as ‘desinewed meat’) circulate in the European Union with different labels, that is to say, as ‘MSM’ or as ‘meat preparations’. In those circumstances, Member States in whose territory it is unlawful to label the products at issue as ‘meat preparations’ may prohibit the circulation of those products, or even, as the case may be, the circulation of all products labelled ‘meat preparations’ coming from the United Kingdom or other Member States. Convinced that the Commission’s point of view and, accordingly, the interpretation of paragraph 1.14 of Annex I to Regulation No 853/2004 on which the Moratorium is based are incorrect and therefore pose a serious threat to Newby Foods’ business and to other producers of products known as ‘desinewed meat’, the High Court has provisionally authorised Newby Foods to resume production of that type of product.
14      However, those factors do not establish a need to deal with the case within a short time through the application of Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
15      First of all, the fact that a large number of persons or legal situations are potentially concerned by the decision that a national court must make after requesting the Court for a preliminary ruling does not, as such, justify use of the expedited procedure (see, to that effect, inter alia, the order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2009 in Case C‑240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited). The position could not be otherwise in the case of preliminary rulings delivered by the Court, which, by their very nature, are of interest to all the persons concerned by the European Union (‘EU’) rules at issue. Also, the statements made in that connection in the application for the expedited procedure are not substantiated. Moreover, the order for reference partially reproduces the wording of the FSA’s letter of 4 April 2012 introducing the Moratorium, according to which the manufacturing procedure at issue in the case before the High Court is used only by ‘a very small part of [the] meat processing industry [in the United Kingdom]’.
16      Next, as regards the financial risks to which the High Court refers, it should be noted that that court does not describe the extent of those risks (see, by analogy, the order in Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, paragraph 12 and the case-law cited). Nor, in any event, can the risk of economic loss and, more generally, the importance of the amounts at stake in the case before the referring court – supposing those factors to be established – justify in themselves recourse to the expedited procedure (see, to that effect, orders of the President of the Court of 21 September 2009 in Case C‑241/09 Fluxys, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited, and of 19 October 2009 in Case C‑310/09 Accor, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited).
17      Furthermore, it is settled case-law that the fact that the applicant in the main proceedings is confronted with a lack of legal certainty cannot amount to an exceptional situation capable of justifying use of the expedited procedure (see, to that effect, inter alia, the orders of the President of the Court of 8 September 2011 in Joined Cases C‑356/11 and C‑357/11 O and Others, paragraph 14, and of 7 February 2012 in Case C‑648/11 MA and Others, paragraph 12).
18      Lastly, the same applies to the argument relating to the possible discrepancy between the way in which the Commission, on the one hand, and a number of Member States, on the other, interpret paragraphs 1.14 and 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation No 853/2004 and to the possibility that, as a result, provisions of EU law are infringed. The importance of ensuring that all provisions forming part of the EU legal order are uniformly applied throughout the European Union is inherent in any request made under Article 267 TFEU and is not enough, in itself, to show that the situation is so urgent that the request for a preliminary ruling should be placed under the expedited procedure (see, to that effect, inter alia, the order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2011 in Case C‑528/11 Halaf, paragraph 8).
19      In those circumstances, the request from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), that the present case be dealt with under the expedited procedure cannot be granted.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
The request from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom), that Case C‑453/13 be dealt with under the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court is refused.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: English.