Criminal Cassation Court, ruling no. 2989 of January 27, 2025 (hearing of November 21, 2025 – regulatory references: Article 590 of the Criminal Code)

The case involved the shareholders and legal representatives of a farming company who had sold cheese containing “Salmonella Enteritidis“, thus causing personal injuries resulting from the ingestion of the product by four people. One of them fell to the ground and suffered a broken femur due to debilitation resulting from acute gastroenteritis. The Justice of the Peace, with jurisdiction over the crime of personal injury, acquitted the defendants due to the dismissal of the complaint by two of the injured parties (evidently because they had received compensation), while the other two were acquitted due to the lack of evidence of the crime. The Supreme Court’s ruling then addressed the appeal filed by the latter two injured parties, who had joined the civil action, while nothing is known about the outcome of the indictment pursuant to Article 5 of Law 283/1962, a crime that was certainly charged separately, given that the competent judge (i.e., the court) was different.

The Justice of the Peace found insufficient evidence of a link between the use of sulfites and the injuries to the victims. The victims subsequently appealed, arguing that the contamination may have been accidental, as claimed by the inspectors, who had hypothetically attributed it to wild poultry. Indeed, the supervisory body noted that the company had complied with all the requirements set forth by the regulations governing milk processing, from delivery to periodic inspections, thus ruling out any negligence on the part of the defendants.

In this regard, it can first be observed that, in principle, a favorable outcome of the official inspection may not be conclusive. Thus, in a case involving the production and retail sale of contaminated cheese, Article 444 of the Criminal Code (in the negligent form of Article 452 of the Criminal Code) was deemed applicable for intoxication caused by the presence of Staphylococcus aureus in the cheese, which was present in the water drunk by the animals. This was despite the company owner having complied with the AUSL inspections, and this was because such inspections do not guarantee that the products sold are free from any contamination. Indeed, according to the Court of Cassation, the Osa is required to comply not only with the legal provisions governing that specific production sector, but also with the general rules requiring maximum prudence, attention, and diligence in production (Criminal Court of Cassation, ruling no. 4810/2002).

In reality, in our case, the judge failed to take into account the fact that two animals on the farm had been found infected with Salmonella; and, more importantly, that one of the company’s owners had admitted that the technician hired by the company had not performed any Salmonella testing. The Court of Cassation therefore found the acquittal insufficiently reasoned, as it failed to consider the (lack of) testing required for the sale of the processed product to the end user. Thus, it failed to consider the actual compliance of the producers’ conduct during the sales phase, and in particular with the provisions of Article 5, letter d), of Law No. 283 of 30 April 1962 (or, more precisely, Article 444 of the Criminal Code).