Food Labelling under the FIR: LVwG Tyrol on 'Saure Lunge' and Labelling Deficiencies

Summary

The Regional Administrative Court of Tyrol ruled on nine food law objections concerning a product labelled "Kalbsbeuschel hausgemacht" (homemade veal offal). The allegation of misleading labelling did not stand: in the specific circumstances of the case, the term "Saure Lunge" (a traditional Austrian offal dish) on the front of the packaging was not treated as a misleading statement about the product's characteristics. The remaining labelling deficiencies were largely upheld.

Of particular significance is the court's finding that the four errors in the ingredient list did not constitute four separate administrative offences, but rather a single administrative offence. The court reasoned that all four points concerned the same ingredient list of the same product and stemmed from a single, uniform labelling deficiency.

Background

By ruling of the Regional Administrative Court of Tyrol, LVwG-2025/46/0061-9, of 23 March 2026, the court decided on an appeal against a penal ruling issued by a district administrative authority. The subject matter was a pre-packaged food product labelled "Kalbsbeuschel hausgemacht" (homemade veal offal) offered for sale in a refrigerated display.

A total of nine objections were raised, concerning the front-of-pack presentation, the ingredient list, allergen labelling, additional frozen storage instructions, the business operator's address, and the legibility of the preparation and use instructions.

Decision

Count 1: "Saure Lunge" did not lead to a penalty here

The charge in Count 1 was that the front of the packaging was misleading, as it displayed "Saure Lunge" together with an image of a plated dish with accompaniments, while the back label referred to "Kalbsbeuschel" and the accompaniments were not included in the product.

The court set aside this count. It held that "Saure Lunge" in the given context was to be understood not as a statement about a characteristic of the food, but as its product name. This distinction was decisive, since the charge had been framed as a misleading statement about characteristics. The court further found that the pictorial depiction of the accompaniments was likewise insufficient to establish relevant misleading conduct in this case.

Counts 2 to 5: four errors, but only one administrative offence

Counts 2 to 5 all concerned the ingredient list of the same product. The court regarded these as reflecting a single failure of due care in the preparation and approval of the label, and accordingly consolidated them into one administrative offence subject to a single cumulative penalty.

The court nonetheless confirmed the substance of each objection:

The quantity declarations for veal lung and heart were missing.
The indication "vinegar" alone was insufficiently specific.
The indication "heart" was unclear, as the animal species was not expressly stated.
The formulation "phosphate (stabiliser, antioxidant, flavour enhancer, maltodextrin and flavouring)" was not clearly structured and was not easily comprehensible to consumers due to the use of brackets.

The court also clarified that the authority had incorrectly described the respondent's capacity in one of these counts: the relevant capacity was that of general partner (Komplementärin) of the limited partnership.

Count 6: allergen labelling upheld

Count 6 concerned the failure to highlight butter as an allergen. This count was upheld. The court noted expressly that the appeal had challenged only the level of the penalty on this point; the finding of liability had therefore already become final.

Count 7: impermissible frozen storage instruction

Count 7 concerned the additional indication:

"store frozen at -18°C, best before: 21.09.24"

The court upheld this objection. The product was sold chilled and was not a frozen food within the meaning of the applicable regulation. The use of such an additional frozen storage instruction was therefore not permitted.

Count 8: incomplete business operator address

Count 8 was also upheld. The court held that the operator details on the label were insufficient because street name and building number were absent. A postcode, town name, and telephone number were not enough.

Count 9: preparation instructions obscured

In Count 9, the court confirmed the objection that the preparation and use instructions were not sufficiently legible. They had been largely obscured by a metal clip and by the affixed label. The court found this to be in breach of the FIR's requirements for the clear and legible presentation of mandatory information.

Significance for Practice

This ruling is significant in three respects.

First, it demonstrates that in food law administrative penalty proceedings, close attention must be paid to which specific labelling deficiency is actually charged. Whether a particular indication is to be classified as a product name, a statement of characteristics, an ingredient declaration, or another mandatory particular can be determinative for the outcome of the proceedings.

Second, the ruling confirms that formal labelling obligations must be strictly observed even for artisanal or regionally produced products. This applies in particular to the ingredient list, allergen highlighting, additional storage instructions, the business operator's address, and the legibility of mandatory information.

Third, the consolidation of Counts 2 to 5 is noteworthy. Multiple errors within the same ingredient list need not necessarily be penalised as separate administrative offences. This does not, however, affect the position that other, distinct labelling deficiencies may still be sanctioned independently alongside them.

LVwG Tyrol, LVwG-2025/46/0061-9, of 23 March 2026

More Food Law:

Some of the following articles are in German.

About Sabadello Legal

Sabadello Legal advises and represents manufacturers of food products and food supplements, among other areas. Our clients include food law start-ups as well as established SMEs and international corporations. If you have questions about food law, we would be happy to assist. We advise on food law (LMSVG), labelling and compliance, and product controls — from risk analysis and regulatory communication through to defending against official measures and administrative penalties.

Contact

RA Mag. Andreas Sabadello
Sabadello Legal
+43 1 9971037
office@sabadello.legal

Disclaimer

This article is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute individual legal advice.