Case C‑453/13

The Queen, on the application of:

Newby Foods Ltd

v

Food Standards Agency

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court))

‛Protection of health — Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Hygiene rules for food of animal origin — Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 — Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ — Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 — Prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Consumer protection — Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 16 October 2014

Public health — Hygiene of food of animal origin — Consumer protection — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Concept of ‘mechanically separated meat’ — Product obtained by the mechanical removal of meat from flesh-bearing bones after boning or from poultry carcases — Included — Condition

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13, Annex I; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 853/2004, Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15)

Points 1.14 and 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation No 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin must be interpreted as meaning that the product obtained by the mechanical removal of meat from flesh-bearing bones after boning or from poultry carcases must be classified as mechanically separated meat within the meaning of that point 1.14, since the process used results in a loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure which is greater than that which is strictly confined to the cutting point, irrespective of the fact that the technique used does not alter the structure of the bones used. Such a product cannot be classified as a meat preparation within the meaning of that point 1.15.

The definition of the concept of ‘mechanically separated meat’ set out in point 1.14 of Annex I to that regulation is based on three cumulative criteria which must be read in conjunction with one another, namely (i) the use of bones from which the intact muscles have already been detached, or of poultry carcases, to which meat remains attached, (ii) the use of methods of mechanical separation to recover that meat, and (iii) the loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure of the meat thus recovered by reason of the use of those processes. In particular, that definition does not make any distinction as regards the degree of loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure, with the result that any loss or modification of that structure is taken into consideration within the context of that definition. Consequently, any meat product which satisfies those three criteria must be classified as mechanically separated meat, irrespective of the degree of loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure, in so far as, by reason of the process used, that loss or modification is greater than that which is strictly confined to the cutting point.

(see paras 41, 42, 67, operative part)

Case C‑453/13

The Queen, on the application of:

Newby Foods Ltd

v

Food Standards Agency

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court))

‛Protection of health — Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Hygiene rules for food of animal origin — Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 — Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ — Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 — Prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Consumer protection — Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 16 October 2014

Public health — Hygiene of food of animal origin — Consumer protection — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Concept of ‘mechanically separated meat’ — Product obtained by the mechanical removal of meat from flesh-bearing bones after boning or from poultry carcases — Included — Condition

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13, Annex I; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 853/2004, Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15)

Points 1.14 and 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation No 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin must be interpreted as meaning that the product obtained by the mechanical removal of meat from flesh-bearing bones after boning or from poultry carcases must be classified as mechanically separated meat within the meaning of that point 1.14, since the process used results in a loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure which is greater than that which is strictly confined to the cutting point, irrespective of the fact that the technique used does not alter the structure of the bones used. Such a product cannot be classified as a meat preparation within the meaning of that point 1.15.

The definition of the concept of ‘mechanically separated meat’ set out in point 1.14 of Annex I to that regulation is based on three cumulative criteria which must be read in conjunction with one another, namely (i) the use of bones from which the intact muscles have already been detached, or of poultry carcases, to which meat remains attached, (ii) the use of methods of mechanical separation to recover that meat, and (iii) the loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure of the meat thus recovered by reason of the use of those processes. In particular, that definition does not make any distinction as regards the degree of loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure, with the result that any loss or modification of that structure is taken into consideration within the context of that definition. Consequently, any meat product which satisfies those three criteria must be classified as mechanically separated meat, irrespective of the degree of loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure, in so far as, by reason of the process used, that loss or modification is greater than that which is strictly confined to the cutting point.

(see paras 41, 42, 67, operative part)