The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Food Standards Agency

Health marking of carcases is an official act entrusted by Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004 to the professional judgment of the official veterinarian. The decision is a weighted double-negative assessment: a mark may be applied only where there are no grounds for declaring the meat unfit. A domestic procedure allowing reconsideration by a justice of the peace would conflict with that EU scheme. Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 does not create such a right because refusal of a health mark is not a finding of operator non-compliance requiring remediation. Nor do A1/P1 of the ECHR or Article 17 of the EU Charter require an appeal from this administrative decision.

The appellants, representing slaughterhouse operators, challenged the Food Standards Agency’s refusal to provide a mechanism for contesting an official veterinarian’s decision not to apply a health mark to a carcase. The claim arose after an official veterinarian rejected a carcase following post-mortem inspection, treating it as unfit for human consumption.

Mr Justice Simon dismissed the judicial review claim, holding that the decision was governed by directly applicable EU legislation and lay within the professional judgment of the official veterinarian. He also held that neither EU nor domestic legislation provided a challenge mechanism, and that the asserted property rights did not require one. The appeal concerned whether section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990, EU legislation, or property-rights guarantees required a reference to a justice of the peace or another effective forum.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the judicial review claim.
2. Under Article 5 and Annex I, Section I of Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004, health marking is carried out by, or under the responsibility of, the official veterinarian. A mark may be applied only where there are no grounds for declaring the meat unfit for human consumption. This is a weighted double-negative decision entrusted to an appropriately qualified expert. A domestic right requiring the issue to be determined by a justice of the peace would conflict with the EU legislative scheme.
3. Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 preserves specific EU provisions on official controls. Article 54 does not confer a right of appeal against refusal of a health mark. That refusal is not based on a finding that the operator has failed to comply with food law, and there is no situation for the operator to remedy. It is instead the veterinarian’s case-by-case assessment of the carcase’s fitness.
4. Section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990, as applied by regulations 25 and 29 of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013, does not provide an appeal against the veterinarian’s decision. The section concerns food already placed on the market, or held or prepared for sale. A carcase awaiting the veterinarian’s health-marking decision cannot lawfully be in those categories. Regulation 29 supports the use of section 9 where unmarked meat is being sold, but does not extend it to the earlier health-marking decision.
5. The asserted rights under A1/P1 of the ECHR and Article 17 of the EU Charter do not require an appeal from an administrative act of this kind. The financial risk to slaughterhouse operators must be balanced against the important public interest in protecting public safety. No reference to the CJEU was necessary because the EU-law issues were clear.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and consequential order of Mr Justice Simon were upheld: [2015] EWHC 1896 (Admin).
• Administrative Court, High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: The judicial review claim was dismissed.