Food Contamination and Commercial Fraud: Commentary on Judgment No. 15117 of 2024

The recent judgment No. 15117 issued on March 28, 2024, by the Court of Udine, offers important insights into the topic of food safety and the distinction between administrative and criminal offenses. The decision focuses on a specific case of contamination of hams due to the use of insecticides for the disinfestation of the aging room. Let us analyze together the details and implications of this ruling.

The Case Examined

In the case at hand, the defendant was charged with commercial fraud for possessing contaminated hams due to disinfestation treatments carried out with aerosolized insecticides, which are prohibited for food. However, the court excluded the applicability of the crime of commercial fraud, asserting that it was instead an administrative offense under Article 6, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree No. 193 of 2007.

The Summary of the Judgment

Contamination of hams due to the use of insecticides for the disinfestation of the aging room - Exclusion of the applicability of the crime of commercial fraud - Applicability of the administrative offense referred to in Article 6, paragraph 5, Legislative Decree No. 193 of 2007 - Existence. The conduct of holding for sale hams preserved during the aging phase in rooms subjected to disinfestation treatments carried out with aerosolized insecticides, the use of which is prohibited concerning food, constitutes the administrative offense referred to in Article 6, paragraph 5, Legislative Decree No. 193 of November 6, 2007, and not the crime of commercial fraud.

This summary highlights the importance of current regulations regarding food safety and the legislator's intent to protect consumer health. Legislative Decree No. 193 of 2007 establishes precise rules concerning the use of chemicals in food treatment, and the judgment clarifies how violating these norms does not automatically result in the application of criminal penalties provided for commercial fraud.

Legal and Regulatory Implications

The ruling provides a useful overview for understanding the differences between various types of offenses in the food sector. In particular, it is essential to consider the following aspects:

  • The crime of commercial fraud, under Articles 515 and 517 bis of the Penal Code, requires proof of deception directed at consumers.
  • Legislative Decree No. 193 of 2007 provides specific administrative penalties for violations related to food safety.
  • The court's decision highlights the need to comply with European regulations, such as EEC Regulations No. 852 and No. 853, which govern food safety.

In conclusion, judgment No. 15117 of 2024 represents an important precedent in the field of food law, clarifying that food contamination caused by prohibited practices constitutes an administrative offense and not a criminal offense of fraud. This distinction is crucial for the correct application of regulations, ensuring adequate protection for consumers and efficient regulation for the food sector.

Bianucci Law Firm