Newby Foods Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Food Standards Agency (No. 7)

A national court’s interim order does not bind courts or authorities outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, the European Commission’s duty of sincere cooperation requires it to respect national-court orders made to secure or preserve rights under EU law, particularly where the Commission intervened and had an opportunity to make representations. The Commission must not deliberately undermine such an order or discourage compliance with it. It may nevertheless communicate its interpretation of EU legislation and take lawful enforcement steps through competent national authorities. Duties relating to the protection of human or animal health may prevail where they conflict with sincere cooperation. A national court cannot determine the lawfulness of acts of Commission institutions outside its jurisdiction or punish such acts as contempt. The contempt application was dismissed, and no declaratory relief was granted.

Newby Foods Ltd sought a declaration that the European Commission had acted, or threatened to act, in a manner calculated to undermine interim orders made in earlier stages of the judicial review proceedings. Those orders permitted the production and sale of certain mechanically recovered pork and poultry meat as meat preparations pending a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The application concerned statements that the products should be labelled as mechanically separated meat if sold outside the United Kingdom. Newby alleged contempt of court and sought to add an allegation of breach of the duty of sincere cooperation under article 4(3) TEU. The central issues were the territorial effect of the interim orders, the court’s jurisdiction over the Commission, and the scope of the Commission’s duty to respect national judicial orders.

1. Outcome. The claim for a declaration that the Commission was in contempt of court was dismissed. The proposed amendment was considered, but no declaratory relief was granted.
2. An interim order made by a national court in an administrative matter binds within that court’s jurisdiction. It does not bind the courts of another Member State, and the distribution of the products in another state is ordinarily a matter for that state’s courts. The order did, however, make it lawful for Newby to produce and sell the relevant pork and poultry products without labelling them as mechanically separated meat pending determination by the Court of Justice.
3. Only the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness of acts of Commission institutions. The English court therefore could not control or punish acts of the Commission committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. Whether an act committed within that jurisdiction could constitute contempt was left open.
4. The principle of sincere cooperation under article 4(3) TEU imposes duties on Commission institutions in their relations with national judicial authorities. Where a national court has granted interim relief to secure or preserve individual rights under EU law, the Commission must accord the order full and proper respect. In particular, it must avoid conduct deliberately directed at undermining the order, especially where it intervened and had a full opportunity to present its position.
5. The Commission remained entitled to communicate its interpretation of EU legislation to national authorities and, within its powers, to seek compliance through those authorities. Its specific duties to safeguard human and animal health could, if exercised in good faith, prevail over sincere cooperation where the duties conflicted.
6. The evidence did not establish that the FSA had breached the order. The Commission’s conduct was open to criticism, but the court declined to formulate a declaration. The court also declined to reopen the interim relief because the disclosure criticism did not show deliberate misleading or material prejudice to the earlier decision.