Judith Jansen and Cyriel Ruers assisted a meat processor in proceedings before the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (“CBb”) concerning the first turnover-related fine imposed by the State Secretary for Health, Welfare and Sport on the basis of an inspection by the NVWA.
According to the State Secretary, the company had failed to take sufficient measures in 2018 to remove products potentially contaminated with Salmonella from the market and had failed to cooperate sufficiently with the supervisory authority. An order subject to a penalty for non-compliance had previously been imposed, which, according to the NVWA, had not been complied with. Initially, a fine of more than €1.5 million was announced. Following the company's opinion, this amount was reduced to just over €500,000 in the final penalty decision. On appeal, the CBb halved this fine again.
The company contested the fine on the grounds, among other things, that the products in question were not intended for direct consumption (not “ready-to-eat”) and therefore could not be considered unsafe within the meaning of Article 14 of the General Food Regulation (“ALV”). The products were not intended for direct human consumption without heating or other processing to eliminate or reduce relevant microorganisms to an acceptable level (Article 2 of Regulation 2073/2005). The meat products had to be thoroughly heated by the consumer before consumption. This was clearly stated on the labels. Since, pursuant to Article 14(3) of the ALV, the assessment of an unsafe product must take into account the “normal conditions of use of the food by the consumer” and “the information provided to the consumer,” the products were therefore not unsafe. In addition, the meat processor argued, among other things, that even if the fine was justified, it should in any case be significantly reduced.
On July 22, 2025, the CBb issued its ruling. According to the CBb, the distinction between “ready-to-eat” and other products is not relevant in this case: when a company receives a potentially unsafe product, the CBb ruled that, pursuant to Article 14(6) of the ALV, all foodstuffs in that batch must be assumed to be unsafe unless extensive testing shows that the rest of the batch or consignment is safe.
The criteria set out in Article 14(3) of the General Food Regulation, which normally have to be taken into account when assessing whether something is unsafe, do not apply in this case, according to the CBb. However, the CBb did see reason to reduce the turnover penalty by 50% because of the discussion about whether or not the products were “ready to eat.”
The CBb considers it plausible that the meat processor's actions were motivated by the fact that the NVWA also distinguished between ready-to-eat food and food that is not ready-to-eat in the run-up to and in the enforcement order. The CBb reduced the fine from €504,038 to €249,519.
Read the judgment here.
Maverick Advocaten regularly assists food companies in proceedings against the NVWA, see here, here, and here.
For 10 tips on what to do during a company visit or dawn raid by the NVWA, see this blog.
For more practical tips on NVWA supervision, see invalnvwa.nl.
Follow Maverick Advocaten on LinkedIn
