- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-591/22: 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
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0591
62022CN0591
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 472/30
(Case C-591/22)
(2022/C 472/34)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
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?
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;
(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;
(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?
(1) OJ 2010 L 61, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2003 L 325, p. 1.