Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:20:58.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mere Retailers May be Penalised for Salmonella Contaminations in Fresh Poultry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Walther Michl
Walther Michl*
Affiliation:
University of Munich, Germany, [email protected]–muenchen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Case C-443/13, Ute Reindl v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck, ECLI:EU:2014:2370

  1. 1. Fresh poultry must be free from salmonella contaminations at all the stages of distribution including the retail stage.

  2. 2. National law may impose a penalty on a food business operator which is active only at the distribution stage for placing salmonella–contaminated foodstuff on the market. It is for the national courts to determine whether such a penalty observes the principle of proportionality as laid down in Article 17 para. 2 of Regulation No 178/2002.

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 151 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 At para. 25 of the judgment.

2 At para. 26 of the judgment.

3 At para. 28 of the judgment.

4 At para. 33 of the judgment.

5 At paras. 33 and 34 of the judgment.

6 At para. 36 of the judgment.

7 At para. 37 of the judgment.

8 At para. 38 of the judgment.

9 At para. 39 of the judgment.

10 At para. 40 of the judgment.

11 At para. 42 of the judgment.

12 At para. 43 of the judgment.

13 Rathke, Kurt–Dietrich, “C 101 Art. 17”, in Walter Zipfel and Kurt–Dietrich Rathke (eds), Lebensmittelrecht Kommentar, Vol. 2, 150th ed. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2012), at marginal number 5.Google Scholar

14 Gorny, Dietrich, “Verordnung (EG) Nr. 178/2002”, in Dannecker, Gerhard et al. (eds), LFGB, Kommentar zu weiteren zentralen lebens–und futtermittelrechtlichen Vorschriften, Vol. 2, 20th ed. (Hamburg: Behr’s, 2012)Google Scholar, at marginal number 316.

15 Cf. e.g. Meyer, Alfred Hagen, “Art. 17 BasisVO”, in Meyer, Alfred Hagen and Streinz, Rudolf (eds.), LFGB, BasisVO, HCVO Kommentar, 2nd ed. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2012)Google Scholar, at marginal number 8; Werner Schroeder and Markus Kraus, „Das neue Lebensmittelrecht – Europarechtliche Grundlagen und Konsequenzen für das deutsche Recht”, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2005, at pp. 423 et sqq., at p. 425; Wehlau, Andreas, LFGB Kommentar (Cologne: Heymanns, 2010), „Vorbemerkung zu § 58”Google Scholar, at marginal number 69.

16 Cf. Wehlau, Andreas, LFGB Kommentar (Cologne: Heymanns, 2010), „Vorbemerkung zu § 58”, at marginal numbers 97 et sqq. Google Scholar

17 Rathke, Kurt–Dietrich, “C 101 Art. 17”, in Zipfel, Walter and Rathke, Kurt–Dietrich (eds.), Lebensmittelrecht Kommentar, Vol. 2, 150th ed. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2012)Google Scholar, at marginal number 5.

18 Ibid., at marginal number 7.

19 Cf. e.g. Case C-601/11 P, France v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2013:465,at marginal number 143, regarding EU legislation, and Case C-24/00, Commission v France [2004] ECR I-1277, at marginal numbers 67 et sqq., regarding national legislation restricting the free movement of goods.

20 Sarmiento, Daniel, “Who's afraid of the Charter? The Court of Justice, national courts and the new framework of fundamental rights protection in Europe”, 50 CML Rev. (2013), at pp. 1267 et sqq., at p. 1280 et seq. Google Scholar

21 Case C-6174/10, Åklagare v Hans Åkerberg Fransson, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, at paras. 25 et sqq.

22 Ibid., at para. 29; for greater detail cf. Daniel Sarmiento, “Who’s afraid of the Charter? The Court of Justice, national courts and the new framework of fundamental rights protection in Europe”, 50 CML Rev. (2013), at pp. 1267 et sqq., at pp. 1294 et sqq. The Court's approach is subject to severe criticism, cf. Filippo Fontanelli, “The Implementation of European Union Law By Member States Under Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights”, 20 The Columbia Journal of European Law (2014), at pp. 193 et sqq.

23 Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland et al., ECLI:EU:C:2013:845, at para. 89.

24 Michl, Walther, “Constitutional Activism of the European Court of Justice? On Rising Tensions Between Karlsruhe and Luxembourg After Åkerberg Fransson”, 31 Ritsumeikan Law Review (2014), pp. 143 et sqq., at p. 150Google Scholar; Thym, Daniel, “Die Reichweite der EUGrundrechte– Charta – Zu viel Grundrechtsschutz?”, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2013, pp. 889 et sqq., at p. 896.Google Scholar

25 Cf. ECJ, Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, at para. 60. For greater detail see Daniel Sarmiento, “Who's afraid of the Charter? The Court of Justice, national courts and the new framework of fundamental rights protection in Europe”, 50 CML Rev. (2013), at pp. 1267 et sqq., at p. 1289 et sqq.; Pérez, Aida Torres, “Melloni in Three Acts: From Dialogue to Monologue”, 10 EuConst (2014), pp. 308 et sqq., at pp. 315 et sqq. Google Scholar