E-8/24 Nordsjo Fjordbruk AS v The Norwegian State
Klik hier voor het dossier van het EVA-hof (voor zover beschikbaar).
Deadlines: Motivation ministry: 22 May 2024 Written observations: 8 July 2024
Keywords: Animal health
Subject: Regulation 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health: Articles 9, 10, 176, 181, 183–184, 191–192, 226 and 269.
Facts of the case: Appellant in this case is ‘Nordsjø Fjordbruk AS’, a company engaged in food fish production. On the basis of national regulations, aquaculture establishments must be approved before they can operate at sea. The respondent is the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. The case concerns the validity of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority’s decision of 29 April 2022. In this decision, the application for approval for appellant’s operating plan for an aquaculture establishment over the year 2022 was refused. The reason for the refusal is the unacceptable high risk of the spread of disease associated with the planned movement of fish. Appellant states that the decision is contrary to Regulation 2016/429, concerning transmissible animal diseases (hereafter: Animal Health Law). The District Court, as well as the Court of Appeal, held that the decision made by the Food Safety Authority was not contrary to the Animal Health Law. Appellant appealed against the judgment.
The Animal Health Law and its underlying acts lay down rules for the prevention and control of transmissible animal diseases. The Supreme Court requests an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court on the interpretation of Articles 9, 10, 176, 181, 183, 184, 191, 192, 226 and 269. The Supreme Court wants to know whether the Member States may adopt national rules allowing the central veterinary authority to prohibit movement of farmed fish from one aquaculture establishment to another within national borders, or refuse approval of an operating plan for an aquaculture establishment if considerations of fish health so warrant.
Request for an advisory opinion: Must Regulation (EU) 2016/429, in particular Articles 9, 10, 176, 181, 183–184, 191–192, 226 and 269 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the Member States’ central veterinary authorities are precluded from prohibiting the movement of farmed fish from one aquaculture establishment to another one within national borders, or are precluded from refusing to approve an operating plan for an aquaculture establishment, in a situation where: - there is no detected disease or concrete suspicion of disease in the fish, - but the veterinary authority, following a specific assessment, has found that considerations of fish health at the individual site or in an area warrant such a prohibition or refusal?
Cited (recent) case-law: - Policy Area: LNV
