Food Hygiene for Fish: EU General Court Requires Scientific Basis to “Clarify” the Law

Food company Mowi Poland successfully challenged the European Commission’s new hygiene rules governing ‘stiffening’—a specialised fish processing technique—on the grounds that the Commission failed to obtain mandatory scientific consultation. While the Commission defended its approach by characterising the measures as mere “clarification” of existing law and citing industry guidelines as support, the EU General Court rejected this argument in its judgment of 24 September 2025 (T-354/24). Siding with the food business operator, the Court determined that the regulation imposed substantive new obligations requiring a scientific basis and consequently annulled the contested fish stiffening rules.

At the end of 2023, the European Commission adopted food hygiene rules for ‘stiffening’ fish products, a processing technique which consists of cutting fish fillets by lowering their initial temperature to a level between -7 C and -14°C (Regulation 2024/1141). The regulation included a maximum period of 96 hours at the modified temperature as well as prohibited storage and transport at that temperature.

Mowi Poland, a food processor specialising in smoked salmon, took issue with the regulation and sought its annulment before the EU General Court (Case T-354/24). The food business contended that because these were new requirements with public health implications, the Commission was obliged to consult the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) under Article 13 of Regulation 853/2004.

The Commission had not done so. To defend its approach, the Commission characterised the regulation as a mere “clarification” of existing law. It cited a letter from EFSA’s executive director and maintained that the 96-hour limit reflected a “consensus among producers in the sector”, as evidenced by industry guides in the sense of Articles 7-9 of Regulation 852/2004.

Mowi Poland prevailed. The General Court found that the existing framework did not clearly prohibit keeping fish at stiffening temperature for more than 96 hours. Ironically, the Commission’s assertion that clarification was needed, reinforced this finding. The EFSA letter, the Court said, was irrelevant: the agency’s mission is to provide scientific advice, not legal interpretation. As for the industry guides, these do not constitute binding law.

It follows that the contested regulation indeed imposed new obligations and that, given the public health implications, EFSA consultation was required. The General Court reminded the Commission that “scientific advice should underpin EU legislation on food hygiene” and annulled the fish stiffening rules in the Commission’s Regulation 2024/1141.

The judgment sends a clear message: the Commission cannot circumvent mandatory consultation requirements by labelling new rules as “clarifications”. When formalising requirements that impose concrete obligations on food business operators—regardless of whether they were allegedly implicit in existing law or reflected in non-binding guidance—the Commission must follow proper procedures to ground them upon a scientific basis.

If you would like further information, please contact Bregt Raus (bregt.raus@altius.com).

Written by

• Bregt Raus

  Managing Associate