Newby Foods Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Food Standards Agency (No. 7)
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR. JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- European Union Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case centers on the Claimant seeking a declaration against the European Commission for allegedly undermining a court order regarding the production of desinewed meat, a process challenged under EU regulations for mechanically separated meat (MSM). The court found it lacked jurisdiction over the Commission's actions outside the UK and dismissed the contempt application. The judgment discusses the duty of sincere cooperation and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice over acts of the Commission.
Judgment
Mr. Justice Edwards-Stuart:
Introduction
This is, I think, the seventh judgment in this case. The subject of this judgment is an application by the Claimant for a declaration that the European Commission (“the Commission”) has acted in a manner that was calculated to undermine an order of this court and is thereby in contempt of court.
In the first judgment I referred the principal questions of interpretation of the relevant EU regulation to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The second judgment concerned an application by the Claimant for interim relief pending the decision from the Court of Justice. By an order dated 26 July 2013 I granted the Commission permission to intervene in the proceedings, which it duly did. I subsequently granted relief but not to the full extent sought by the Claimant. The background giving rise to this dispute and the application for interim relief is set out in full in my first and second judgments, but for ease of reference I will summarise the salient facts.
Much of the meat that is on sale in today’s shops in this country - and probably in other Member States of the European Union also - is the product of butchery by a machine, not by hand. According to the evidence in this case machines are not very efficient butchers, often leaving some 50% (and sometimes much more) of the meat on the bone. Unless this remaining meat is removed in some other way it will not be used as meat. It is, unfortunately, not cost effective in the mass market for this to be done by hand in the traditional way.
In the 1970s machines were developed that would crunch the bones and the residual meat against a perforated plate, with the result that the lean meat, fat and bone marrow would be extruded in a form of slurry with a viscosity not dissimilar to that of a puree. This is known as mechanically separated meat (“MSM”). The consumer would not describe it as fresh meat.
However, within a couple of decades improved machines had been developed which could remove the residual meat from the bone without crushing the bones or liquefying the meat. The Claimant has developed such a machine. By means of a vibrating piston, operating at a much lower pressure than the early crushing machines, the meaty bones are forced into contact with one another in such a way that most of the meat is removed from the bones by shearing forces. This meat, without any bone marrow, leaves the chamber via a perforated plate with 10 mm diameter apertures