Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 – Reference quantities – Ex post correction – Notification of producers
C-491/00, [2004] EUECJ C-491/00
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213784
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 – Reference quantities – Ex post correction – Notification of producers
C-482/00, [2004] EUECJ C-482/00
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213780
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 – Reference quantities – Ex post correction – Notification of producers
C-489/00, [2004] EUECJ C-489/00
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213782
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 – Reference quantities – Ex post correction – Notification of producers
C-481/00, [2004] EUECJ C-481/00
See Also – Azienda Agricola Ettore Ribaldi v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo C-499/00 ECJ 25-Mar-2004
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 – Reference quantities – Ex post correction – Notification of producers . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213779
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 – Reference quantities – Ex post correction – Notification of producers
C-484/00, [2004] EUECJ C-484/00
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213781
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 – Reference quantities – Ex post correction – Notification of producers
C-490/00, [2004] EUECJ C-490/00
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213783
The local planning authority served an enforcement notice reciting that the appellant had changed the use of a glasshouse on a nursery garden from use for agricultural purposes to the use for the sale of goods and requiring the appellant to discontinue the latter use. No reference was made in the notice to the former subsidiary use for the retail sale of nursery produce and other articles nor was there any provision for its continuance. The court held that the Minister ought to have amended the notice under the powers given to him so as to make it perfectly clear that the notice did not prevent the appellant from using the premises for the sale of goods by retail, provided that such sale was on the scale and in the manner to which he was entitled in 1959, as the Minister himself had found. True that use was a subsidiary one, but nevertheless it should be protected and, in my judgment, this appeal should be allowed to the extent that the decision in question should be sent back to the Minister with a direction that he ought to amend the notice so as to safeguard the appellant’s established right as found by the Minister to carry on retail trade in the manner and to the extent to which the Minister had found it was carried on in 1959.
Widgery J
(1964) 16 P and CR 158
England and Wales
Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v North West Estates plc and others ChD 31-May-2002
The planning authority sought injunctions for enforcement notices. The landowner argued that human rights law required the court when looking at such a request to look at the entire planning history.
Held: Although the court could look to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.183688
The second respondent extended their facilities at their abattoir to include more lairage. It was done without planning permission, and the abattoir was in the Green Belt. After an enquiry following a challenge of an enforcement notice, the inspector found that the damage to the green belt was slight. Removing the facility would not decrease traffic, and would compromise animal welfare. The authority challenged the decision saying that the inspector had not allowed for the possible reduced level of business which would follow the satisfaction of the enforcement notice. Held though the decision was criticised, the inspector had taken account of such issues and the decision could not be set aside.
Burton J
Gazette 11-Oct-2001
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.166538
L had a barony title to the lands on both sides of a river, dating from 1774, and also express grants of salmon-fishing of a much earlier date to certain parts of the river situated below the falls of K. He had from time immemorial exercised a full and exclusive right of fishing below these falls, inter alia, by means of close cruives, which caught almost all the salmon ascending the river. In consequence of the cruives and the falls, the fishing above the falls was, up to 1862, when close cruives were abolished, almost worthless. L had asserted his right above the falls for a prescriptive period (1) by protecting the river during the spawning season; (2) by exercising the right of fishing occasionally; (3) by taking his tenants bound to protect the water; (4) by preventing others from fishing. Since 1862 he had fished regularly above the falls. It was not alleged that any other party had possessed the right of fishing. Held ( affirming Court of Session), in an action at the instance of the Crown, who claimed the fishings above the falls, that apart from the question of express grant, L was entitled to attribute his possession of the whole river to the barony title, and that under it the possession which had been had from the highest portion of the stream down to the sea had been one and continuous, and sufficient to maintain L’s rights within the limits of the barony lands.
Lord Chancellor (Cairns), Lord O’Hagan, and Lord Blackburn
[1880] UKHL 421, 17 SLR 421
England and Wales
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635628
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directives 64/433/EEC, 91/497/EEC and 89/662/EEC – Requirement for special marking and heat treatment of meat from boars
G. Hirsch, P
[1998] ECR I-6871, C-102/96, [1998] EUECJ C-102/96
Directive 64/433/EEC, Directive 91/497/EEC, Directive 89/662/EEC
European
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.161818
ECJ 1. Community law – Principles – Legal certainty – Protection of legitimate expectations – Prohibition of the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action in the absence of unanimity as to their harmlessness – Infringement – None (Council Directive 88/146) 2. Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Prohibition of an economic activity – Whether disproportionate – Assessment criteria – Discretionary power of the Community legislature in the field of the common agricultural policy – Judicial review – Limits (EEC Treaty, Arts 40 and 43) 3. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Harmonization measure applied equally to all the Member States – Differing effects depending on the previous state of national law – Discrimination – None 4. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Prohibition of the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action – Objectives pursued – Choice of legal basis – Article 43 of the Treaty – Misuse of powers – None
(EEC Treaty, Arts 39 and 43, Council Directive 88/146) 5. Measures adopted by the Community institutions – Procedure for enactment – Preparatory documents not affected by a procedural defect occurring at the stage of the final decision in the Council leading to annulment by the Court – Adoption of a new measure on the basis of earlier preparatory documents -Legality 6. Measures adopted by the Community institutions – Application ratione temporis – Period for compliance by the Member States with a directive expiring prior to its adoption – Retroactive effect – Permissibility in the light of the objective to be attained and in the absence of any infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Limits -Principle of non-retroactivity of penal provisions (Council Directive 88/146, Art. 10)
1. Having regard to the divergent appraisals by the national authorities of the Member States, reflected in the differences between existing national legislation, of the dangers which may result from the use of certain substances having a hormonal action, the Council, in deciding in the exercise of its discretionary power to adopt the solution of prohibiting them, neither infringed the principle of legal certainty nor frustrated the legitimate expectations of traders affected by that measure. 2. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of Community law, the lawfulness of the prohibition of an economic activity is subject to the condition that the prohibitory measures are appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question, it being understood that when there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued. However, with regard to judicial review of compliance with those conditions it must be borne in mind that in matters concerning the common agricultural policy the Community legislature has a discretionary power which corresponds to the political responsibilities given to it by Articles 40 and 43 of the Treaty. Consequently, the legality of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue. 3. Although a harmonization measure which is intended to standardize previously disparate rules of the Member States inevitably produces different effects depending on the prior state of the various national laws, there cannot be said to be discrimination where it applies equally to all Member States. 4. A decision may amount to a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken with the exclusive purpose, or at any rate the main purpose, of achieving an end other than that stated or evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case. That was not so in the case of Directive 88/146 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action, which was adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty alone. By regulating conditions of the production and marketing of meat in order to improve its quality while curbing surplus production, that directive falls within the scope of the measures provided for by the common organization of the markets in meat and thus contributes to the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty. 5. The annulment by a judgment of the Court of a Council directive on account of a procedural defect concerning solely the manner in which it was finally adopted by the Council does not affect the preparatory acts of the other institutions. Therefore, these acts need not be repeated when the Council adopts a new directive replacing the one which has been annulled. Changes occurring in the interval in the composition of those institutions are of no effect since they do not affect the continuity of the institutions themselves. Whether or not a subsequent change in circumstances must be taken into consideration is for each institution to assess. 6. By fixing 1 January 1988 as the date of expiry of the period for implementation of Directive 88/146 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of substances having a hormonal action, Article 10 of the directive gives it retroactive effect in so far as the directive was adopted and notified in March 1988. Outside the criminal sphere, such retroactive effect is permissible, since, first, the directive replaced an earlier directive annulled because of a procedural defect, and the Council considered it necessary in order to avoid a temporary legal vacuum during the period between the annulment of one instrument and its replacement by a lawfully adopted text with regard to the existence of a basis in Community law for national provisions adopted by the Member States in order to comply with the directive which was annulled, and, secondly, there was no infringement of the legitimate expectations of the traders concerned, in light of the rapid succession of the two directives and the reason for which the first one was annulled. As regards the criminal sphere, on the other hand, Article 10 of the directive cannot be interpreted as requiring Member States to adopt measures which conflict with Community law, in particular with the principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect, which Community law incorporates, as a fundamental right, among its general principles. Nor may it provide a basis for criminal proceedings instituted under provisions of national law which may have been adopted in implementation of the annulled directive and whose sole basis is to be found therein.
In relation to an alleged infringement of the principle of legal certainty: ‘ . . having regard to the discretionary power conferred on the Council in the implementation of the common agricultural policy, be limited to examining whether the measure in question is vitiated by a manifest error or misuse of powers, or whether the authority in question has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion.’
and . . ‘The Court has consistently held that the principle of proportionality is one of the general principles of Community law. By virtue of that principle, the lawfulness of the prohibition of an economic activity is subject to the condition that the prohibitory measures are appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question; when there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued.’
C-331/88, R-88/14, [1990] EUECJ R-88/146, [1990] ECR I-4023
EEC Treaty 39 43, Council Directive 88/146
European
Cited – Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others HL 8-Feb-2001
The name ‘Parma Ham’ was controlled as to its use under Italian law, and the associated mark, the ‘corona ducale’, was to be applied to a sale of Parma Ham, including any packaging. Proper Parma Ham was imported and resold through the defendant’s . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 25-Feb-2015
Appeal about the distribution of European Structural Funds among the regions of the United Kingdom. It arises out of the complaint of a number of local authorities in Merseyside and South Yorkshire about the way in which it is proposed to distribute . .
Cited – Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd SC 11-Mar-2015
Appeal about the proper approach of the courts where the defendant to a claim for possession of his home raises a defence of unlawful discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, by the claimant landlord. In particular, the issue is whether . .
Cited – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Gubeladze SC 19-Jun-2019
The claimant had come from Latvia to the UK in 2008, but not registered under the Worker Registration Scheme until 2010. She now sought state pension credit. The SS appealed from a judgment that it was to calculate her entitlement to include her . .
Cited – Micula and Others v Romania SC 19-Feb-2020
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the CJEU.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.134975
[2001] NIQB 6
Northern Ireland
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.166414
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 77/388/EEC – VAT – Article 11(A)(1)(a) – Taxable amount – Subsidy directly linked to the price – Regulation (EC) No 603/95 – Aid granted in the dried fodder secto
[2004] EUECJ C-381/01
European
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199449
The claimant sought damages for having had its licence to catch Patagonian toothfish off South Georgia revoked, saying that it had infringed its property rights under the Convention.
Held: Though the Convention rights had been extended to cover the Falkland Islands and its dependencies, the rights under the first protocol had not been so extended, and the claim failed. In issuing an instruction the Queen had acted in right of the United Kingdom, and not the overseas territory, by reason of the particular facts of that case, and in particular (i) the fact that it was concerned with a dependent territory, not a sovereign state; (ii) the small size, population and resources of the territory; and (iii) the wording of its constitution. ‘…. In respect of the Protocol, South Georgia does not fall within its legal space on the ground that the Convention applies there, or for any other reason, or because the June instruction was unlawful as contrary to the law of England and Wales ….. ‘
Pill, Thomas and Jacob LJJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 527, Times 10-May-2004, [2005] I QB 93
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
See also – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Quark Fishing Limited CA 30-Oct-2002
Order confirmed. ‘while for my part I have found nothing to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the Secretary of State, the history of this case has demonstrated to my mind that the approach taken to the public decisions that had to be made fell . .
Appeal from – Quark Fishing Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 22-Jul-2003
The respondent had failed to renew the claimant’s license to fish in the South Atlantic for Patagonian Toothfish. The refusal had been found to be unlawful. The claimant now sought damages.
Held: English law does not generally provide a remedy . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Another, ex parte Bancoult Admn 3-Nov-2000
The applicant sought judicial review of an ordinance made by the commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory. An issue was raised whether the High Court in London had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings and grant relief.
Held: . .
Cited – X v Belgium ECHR 1961
The Commission considered claims by long standing residents of the Belgian Congo who suffered as a result of upheavals on independence. One claim was based upon exclusion, albeit of Belgian nationals, from participation in the elections held in . .
Cited – Fitzgibbon v HM Attorney General ChD 9-Feb-2005
The claimant sought declarations that the government of Australia was not being conducted in accordance with the 1900 Act as it should be.
Held: Though the Act was an English Act, the Courts of England now have no jurisdiction over Australia: . .
Cited – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant had previously received licences to fish for Patagonian Toothfish off South Georgia. The defendant had instructed the issuer of the licence in such a way that it was not renewed. It now had to establish that its article 1 rights had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196090
Stanley Brunton J
[2004] EWHC 776 (QB)
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195571
CJ Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 – Proof of export – Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 – Correction of an export licence – Obvious inaccuracy – Principle of proportionality.
C-329/01, [2004] EUECJ C-329/01, [2004] ECR I-1899
Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88, Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81
European
Cited – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194041
[2004] EWCA Civ 82
England and Wales
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193611
In the absence of full argument on the question of the competency of an action, no plea being tabled, the House of Lords, in a doubtful case, did not decline jurisdiction but entertained the action, holding the point open for future argument and decision.
In an arbitration under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 to fix the compensation payable to the tenant of a farm on its acquisition for small holdings, the arbiter found that there was a question of law involved as to the date to which the tenant’s tenancy extended, and with the concurrence of parties gave alternative findings. The tenant brought an action of declarator to establish one of the alternatives. No plea to the competency of alternative findings was taken or fully argued. A previous case with alternative findings ( Scott Plummer v. Board of Agriculture for Scotland, 1916 S.C. (H.L.) 94, 53 SLR 207) had been entertained and decided, no plea to competency having there been advanced.
Held that, following Scott Plummer ( v. sup.), the appeal in this case should be entertained, the point, however, being kept open.
Per the Lord Chancellor-‘I think that the provision in the section that the arbiter has to decide the case within three months may be regarded as satisfied if within that time the arbiter states the facts finally so as to enable the courts to decide upon a point of law in an action upon the award, which indeed is the normal way of enforcing an award.’
In December 1913 the Board of Agriculture was given power to take a farm for small holdings, and was given to Martinmas 1915 to exercise the power. This was intimated to the tenant. His lease expired at Martinmas 1914. In February 1914 he approached his landlord as to whether the latter intended to serve notice to quit for Martinmas 1914, and was informed that he did not intend to do so, not knowing if the Board were to proceed, and not wishing to be without a tenant for a year. The Board took possession at Martinmas 1914.
Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that the tenant was entitled to compensation for the loss of the profits on the year’s tenancy, Martinmas 1914 to Martinmas 1915.
Lord Chancellor (Finlay), Viscount Haldane, Lord Dunedin, and Lord Atkinson
[1918] UKHL 180, 1917 SC 264, 55 SLR 180
Scotland
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.631464
Appeal from order confiscating fishing boats
[2002] NICA 3
Northern Ireland
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189646
The Hon Mr Justice Goldring
[2002] EWHC 2574 (Admin)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina on the Application of Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 4-Nov-2003
The applicant farmer had substantial volumes of potentially contaminated carcasses on his land. The respondent derogated from the European regulations which would have arranged for the disposal of the carcasses. The respondent challenged the . .
See Also – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 8-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to re-open their appeal saying that the respondent department had failed properly to describe the workings of the clawback scheme under which its claim had been made.
Held: A DEFRA official had provided materially . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189107
The company was prosecuted for offences under the Regulations, relating to the designation of horticultural produce for sale. The original Act had been relied upon to implement the European regulations after entry to the EU.
Held: The offences were properly charged. The scope for the subsequent regulations were, to the extent they were not excluded by subsection (3), all directly applicable European Regulations applied whether or not they predated the 1964 Act. ‘offence-creating provisions must always be expressed with sufficient clarity and precision. But the mechanism chosen by Parliament for implementing Community obligations is a matter of legislative choice for Parliament. Particularly where Community legislation may be changed frequently, Parliament may choose to adopt an approach which does not involve making new implementing regulations whenever Community legislation changes. Courts should not approach the interpretation of implementing statutes or regulations as though there were a presumption that they do not embrace future changes in Community legislation. There is no such presumption.’
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[2003] UKHL 71, Times 19-Dec-2003, Gazette 29-Jan-2004, [2004] ACD 28, [2003] NPC 160, (2004) 168 JP 1, [2004] Eu LR 549, [2004] 1 WLR 105, [2004] 1 CMLR 42, [2004] 1 All ER 268
Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 11(1) 11(3)
England and Wales
Cited – Antonio Munoz Y Cia SA Superior and Fruitcola SA v Frumar Limited and Another ECJ 17-Sep-2002
The claimant grew and sold grapes, and complained that the defendant who also traded in grapes was acting in breach of community legislation in failing to meet quality control standards. The national court had held that the claimant had no right . .
Cited – Mayne and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food QBD 3-Aug-2000
The defendants exported beef without the requisite certificates. The UK rules had been made before a Directive came into effect. On appeal after conviction the defendant argued that the rules purported to take account of future amendments. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188920
ECJ Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector – Reallocation or transfer of quotas – Interpretation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 1785/81, (EEC) No 193/82 and (EC) No 1260/2001 – Decision of competent authorities of a Member State, when approving a merger, to reallocate sugar production quotas – Sale by public auction – Transfer of quotas for consideration.
C-416/01, [2003] EUECJ C-416/01
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188356
The Directive sought to provide welfare protection for battery chickens. The applicant complained that the farming techniques which restricted diet in order to encourage fast growth would have been prevented if the respondent had properly implemented the Directive in its Code under the 1968 Act, and in the 2000 Regulations. They said that the Directive required the respondent to control compliance through criminal sanctions. The respondent had adopted a scheme of only civil enforcement.
Held: The obligations were expressed in a general fashion, which was to be taken to allow the respondent a discretion as to how the objectives could be achieved. The objectives of the Directive were not to be confused with the means of attaining them. The respondent was entitled to conclude that a criminal code might be counter-productive.
Newman J
[2003] EWHC 2850 (Admin), Times 05-Dec-2003
Council Directive 98/58/EC, Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 2, Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000
See Also – Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd ECJ 19-Mar-1998
Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
Appeal from – Regina on the Application of Compassion In World Farming Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants challenged regulations as to animal welfare, saying that they allowed farmers to use practices which did not protect animal welfare.
Held: It was not unlawful to adopt a policy of not prosecuting farmers for practices which would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188324
[2003] EWHC 2748 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188143
Commission Decision 2001/739/EC of 17 October 2001 on the total amount of Community aid for the eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in 1998
C-501/01, [2003] EUECJ C-501/01
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187781
The claimant’s fish farm had been damaged followng the discharge of oil from the Braer. The responders operated a scheme for compensation for losses. The parties disputed the entitlement of the claimants to compensation for losses following their inability to introduce smolt into the farm.
Lord Hardie
[2003] ScotCS 153
Scotland
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182636
(Judgment) Action for annulment – Action for damages.
T-44/01, [2003] EUECJ T-44/01
European
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180832
ECJ Directive 89/397/EEC – Official control of foodstuffs – Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) – Analysis of samples – Right to a second opinion – Direct effect – Admissibility of the results of analyses as evidence in the event of an infringement of the right to a second opinion
M. Wathelet, P
C-276/01, [2003] EUECJ C-276/01
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180819
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien – Austria. Fisheries – Health policy – Directive 91/493/EEC and Decision 94/356/EC – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Principle of proportionality – Limit values for the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in smoked fish products.
C-121/00, [2002] EUECJ C-121/00, (2002) ECR 1-9193
European
Cited – British American Tobacco UK Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 5-Nov-2004
The claimants challenged the validity of regulations restricting cigarette advertisements, saying that greater exceptions should have been allowed, and that the regulations infringed their commercial right of free speech.
Held: The Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177825
ECJ Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Description and presentation of wines – Quality wines produced in specific regions – Brand name printed on label – Restrictions – Articles 11 and 40 of Regulation No 2392/89
C-81/01, [2002] EUECJ C-81/01
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177828
A corporation may prescribe for common in gross for cattle levant and couchant within the town, but not for common in gross without number
[1845] EngR 155, (1845) 1 Wms Saund 343, (1845) 85 ER 495
England and Wales
Appeal from – Mellor v Spateman (1) 1845
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.303297
A landowner sought repossession of land from his agricultural tenant for failure to pay his rent. The tenant alleged that a charge was an extortionate credit bargain. The landlord appealed.
Held: The Court must have regard to the evidence and cannot adopt an explanation unsupported by evidence. Nor in the absence of evidence supporting it, can the mortgage explanation in this case be accepted on the ground that it is the least unlikely or illogical of the competing explanations. In the absence of evidence of an explanation giving the document a different effect, the document takes effect at its face value.
[2002] EWCA Civ 1138
England and Wales
Applied – Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd CA 1992
The court was asked whether a transaction relating to goods between an exporter and the defendant, as a financier, associated with sales by the exporter to third-party purchasers, amounted to a true sale by the exporter to the defendant or was . .
Cited – Brighton and Hove City Council v Audus ChD 26-Feb-2009
The claimant was the proprietor of a fourth legal charge on a title. It sought a declaration that a second charge in favour of the defendant was void as a clog on the proprietor’s equity of redemption. An advance secured by a first charge, also in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175236
ECJ Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Letter from the Commission informing the applicant of the continuation of a procedure for cancelling a contribution and recovering the amount already paid
(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 4028/86)
Any measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action under Article 173 for a declaration that it is void.
In the case of acts or decisions drawn up in a procedure involving several stages, and particularly at the end of an internal procedure, it is only those measures which definitively determine the position of the institution upon the conclusion of that procedure which are open to challenge and not intermediate measures whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision.
A letter in which the Commission informs the applicant company of the continuation of an internal procedure with a view to cancelling financial aid granted to it under Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, and recovering the amount already paid is to be regarded as an intermediate measure whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision and cannot, therefore, be regarded as an actionable measure. As to any adverse effects arising from the fact that the procedure is pending before the Commission, they are merely the logical consequence of the commencement of that procedure and, so long as the Commission adopts only temporary measures, do not indicate the existence of a measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of the applicant.
[1998] EUECJ T-274/97
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173448
ECFI Preliminary rulings – Assessment of validity – Declaration that a regulation is invalid – Effects – Application by analogy of Article 176 of the Treaty (now Article 233 EC)- Obligations of the Community institutions – Scope – Compensation for damage caused by the illegality found – Covered (EC Treaty, Arts 176, 177 and 215, second para. (now Arts 233 EC, 234 EC and 288, second para., EC)
When, in proceedings under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC), the Court of Justice rules that an act adopted by the Community legislature is invalid, its decision has the legal effect of requiring the competent Community institutions to adopt the measures necessary to remedy that illegality. They must therefore take the measures necessary to comply with that judgment in the same way as they must, under Article 176 of the Treaty (now Article 233 EC), in the case of a judgment annulling a measure or declaring that the failure of a Community institution to act is unlawful. When a Community measure is held to be invalid by a preliminary ruling, the obligation laid down by Article 176 of the Treaty applies by analogy.
The obligation on the institutions to take the measures necessary to remedy illegalities found by the Community judicature requires them not only to adopt the essential legislative or administrative measures but also to make good damage which has resulted from the unlawful act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC)concerning the presence of fault, harm and a causal link.
Moura Ramos P
T-220/97, [1999] EUECJ T-220/97
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173412
ECFI 1 Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision rejecting a subsidiary’s application for inclusion of a pharmacologically active substance in the list of substances not subject to maximum residue limits – Action brought by the parent company – Whether admissible
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.)
2 Procedure – Grounds of judgments – Judgment annulling a measure – Grounds identical to those of a previous judgment – Reference to be made to the grounds of the earlier judgment
T-112/97, [1999] EUECJ T-112/97
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173358
ECJ Common agricultural policy – Animal health – Bovine spongiform encephalopathy – Action for damages – Regulation (EC) No 1357/96 – Additional premiums – Action for annulment – Trade association – Inadmissible.
T-149/96, [1998] EUECJ T-149/96
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173268
ECJ Agriculture – Fisheries – Aquaculture and establishment of protected marine areas – Community financial aid – Declaration of ineligibility of certain expenditure – Action for annulment – Action for damages.
[1997] EUECJ T-218/95
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173119
ECFI 1 Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Milk and milk products – Aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs – Conditions for granting aid – Intermediate products – Definition – Obligation to add tracers
(Commission Regulation No 570/88, Art. 9a)
2 Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Milk and milk products – Aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs – Conditions for granting aid – Butter – Definition
(Council Regulations No 985/68, Art. 1(3)(a) and (b), and No 2991/94; Commission Regulation No 570/88, Art. 1(2)(a))
3 Actions for annulment – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Act not concerning the product manufactured by the applicant – Inadmissible
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, para. 4; Commission Regulations No 570/88, Arts 1 and 9a, and No 455/95, Art. 1(4))
4 A product consisting of 82% butterfat, 16% water and 2% fat-free dried milk extract, obtained by concentrating, fractionating and recomposing raw materials consisting of 65% butter and 35% cream, must be regarded as an intermediate product within the meaning of Article 9a of Regulation No 570/88 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs.
Failure to incorporate tracers, as required by Article 9a in order for an intermediate product to have access to the aid provided for by that regulation, does not alter the actual nature of the product, but merely makes it ineligible for Community aid. Tracing is intended to prevent fraud and is not a necessary process in the manufacture of the product.
The fact that an intermediate product within the meaning of that article may, in addition, be classified as butter under the domestic legislation of one Member State cannot displace the conditions laid down by Article 9a in order for one of the products referred to therein to qualify for aid under Regulation No 570/88.
5 Although, in defining the conditions to be satisfied in order for butter to qualify for aid under Article 1 of Regulation 570/88, Article 1, second paragraph, (a) makes express reference only to Article 1(3)(b), on the grading of butter, of Regulation No 985/68 concerning intervention on the market in butter and cream, it requires in addition that the product should meet a certain ‘definition’. That definition is set out in Article 1(3)(a) of Regulation No 985/68 and refers to technical conditions for the production and composition of butter.
The fact that a certain product does not fall within the category of butter for the application of Regulation No 570/88 cannot be altered by the fact that Regulation No 2991/94 laying down standards for spreadable fats contains a broader definition of butter which includes that product. That regulation does not fall within the scope of the intervention measures intended to encourage the disposal of Community butter surpluses but pursues the objective of protecting and informing consumers.
6 Article 1(4) of Regulation No 455/95, regarding in particular the grant of aid for buying in butter, amends Article 1 of Regulation No 570/88 only and therefore does not concern the intermediate products referred to in Article 9(a) of that regulation, with the result that an action for the annulment of Article 1(4), brought by a manufacturer of intermediate products, must be dismissed as inadmissible for want of any legal interest in bringing proceedings.
T-117/95, [1997] EUECJ T-117/95
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173037
Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation increasing the tariff quota for imports of bananas for traders affected by a natural disaster
T-18/95, [1996] EUECJ T-18/95
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172991
1. The Community’s liability for losses resulting from the application of Regulation No 857/84, which fixes the reference quantity to be allocated under the scheme for additional levies on milk to each producer on the basis of production delivered during a reference year, cannot be incurred with respect to losses sustained after the date of the entry into force of Regulation No 764/89 amending Regulation No 857/84, since the refusal of a specific reference quantity is the result of an autonomous decision by the national authorities, based on considerations which are, to a very large extent, different from those mentioned by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Case C-314/89 Rauh in relation to producers who have taken over a holding by succession or by a similar transaction after expiry of a non-marketing undertaking entered into under Regulation No 1078/77 by the predecessor in title.
2. The limitation period for actions against the Community on grounds of non-contractual liability, laid down by Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, cannot start to run before all the requirements governing the obligation to make good the damage are satisfied and, in particular, in cases where liability stems from a legislative measure, before the injurious effects of the measure have been produced.
In the case of damage suffered by a producer of milk or milk products who, on account of a non-marketing or conversion undertaking entered into under Regulation No 1078/77, could not, in the light of Regulation No 857/84, be allocated a reference quantity, and was consequently unable to market any quantity of milk exempt from the additional levy, the requirements for bringing an action for compensation against the Community were fulfilled and the limitation period started to run on the date on which Regulation No 857/84 became applicable to that producer. Since, moreover, that damage was not caused instantaneously but recurred on a daily basis, entitlement to compensation relates to consecutive periods commencing on each day on which it was not possible to market milk. Since it has been held that the damage which the applicant, a producer who took over a holding by succession after expiry of the non-marketing undertaking entered into by his predecessor, claims to have sustained after the date of the entry into force of Regulation No 764/89 amending Regulation No 857/84 is no longer linked to the illegality of the Community legislation and therefore attributable to the Community, the limitation period expired five years after that date unless it was interrupted before that date.
3. Under Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the limitation period is interrupted only if proceedings are instituted before the Community judicature or if, prior to such proceedings, an application is made to the relevant Community institution, provided always that, in the latter case, interruption only occurs if the application is followed by proceedings instituted within the time-limits determined by reference to Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) or Article 175 of the Treaty (now Article 232 EC), depending on the case. The reference in the last sentence of Article 43 of the Statute to Articles 173 and 175 of the Treaty has the effect of rendering applicable, as far as interruption of the limitation period is concerned, the rules for calculating the time-limits laid down by those provisions.
With respect to damage suffered by producers of milk or milk products who, on account of non-marketing or conversion undertakings entered into under Regulation No 1078/77, could not, in the light of Regulation No 857/84, be allocated a reference quantity, and were consequently unable to market any quantity of milk exempt from the additional levy, the waiver of the right to plead limitation contained in the Communication of the Council and the Commission relating to the subsequent adoption of Regulation No 2187/93 providing for an offer of compensation to the producers concerned is a unilateral act which was intended to limit the number of actions brought by encouraging producers to await the introduction of the flat-rate compensation scheme provided for by that regulation. Having regard to its purpose, that waiver ceased to have effect at the end of the period allowed for accepting the compensation offer made in accordance with that regulation or upon the explicit rejection of that offer, if it took place before the expiry of that period. Consequently, the institutions once again became entitled, from that time onwards, to plead limitation.
When a producer has received a compensation offer under Regulation No 2187/93, he may enjoy the benefit of the waiver of the right to plead limitation contained in the Communication of the Council and the Commission only if he has instituted proceedings for compensation within two months following the expiry of the period allowed for accepting the compensation offer or if that offer is explicitly rejected before the expiry of that period. However, if that producer sent an application for compensation to the institutions on a date prior to that communication, and if that application was made within the period laid down by the last sentence of Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice for instituting proceedings, the limitation period is interrupted on the day on which the application for compensation was made. In that case, the undertaking given by the institutions results in suspension of that period for as long as the waiver referred to above produces effects.
T-261/94, [2002] EUECJ T-261/94
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172892
1 Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Allocation of reference quantities exempt from levy – Producers who suspended deliveries pursuant to the non-marketing or conversion premium schemes and were therefore refused a reference quantity – Offer of flat-rate compensation under Regulation No 2187/93 – Producer bringing an action for damages embodying conditional acceptance of the offer – Producer to be regarded as having refused the offer
(EC Treaty, Art. 215; Council Regulation No 2187/93, Arts 8(2) and 14)
2 Actions for damages – Limitation period – Starting point – Liability on account of Regulation No 857/84 resulting in a reference quantity not being allocated to milk producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking – Date to be taken into consideration
(EC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215; EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Council Regulations Nos 1078/77 and 857/84)
3 Regulation No 2187/93 providing for an offer of flat-rate compensation to producers of milk or milk products who entered into a non-marketing undertaking and were temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade on account of the subsequent failure to allocate them a reference quantity contains precise provisions relating to acceptance of the offer of compensation. More specifically, Article 14 provides that acceptance of the offer is signified by return to the competent national authority, within two months of receipt of the offer, of the receipt accompanying the offer.
A producer who brings an action for damages in the Court of First Instance in which he states that he agrees to the offer, except as regards application of the limitation period laid down by Article 8(2) of the regulation, cannot be regarded as having accepted the offer made to him. On the one hand, acceptance cannot be signified in a form not provided for by the regulation and, on the other, it is clear from the wording of the regulation and from the nature of the offer as an offer in settlement that it can only be accepted unconditionally.
4 The limitation period laid down by Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice for actions brought against the Community on grounds of non-contractual liability cannot begin before all the requirements governing the obligation to make good the damage are satisfied and, in particular, in cases where liability stems from a legislative measure, before the injurious effects of the measure have been produced. Those conditions consist of the existence of unlawful conduct on the part of the Community institutions, the fact of the damage alleged and the existence of a causal link between that damage and the loss claimed.
In contrast, a declaration that the measure in question is invalid is not one of those requirements. As regards damage sustained by producers of milk or milk products who, as a result of non-marketing or conversion undertakings entered into pursuant to Regulation No 1078/77, were unable to be allocated a reference quantity in view of Regulation No 857/84 and hence to market any milk exempt from additional levy, time under the limitation period started to run on the date when Regulation No 857/84 began to have injurious effects on the producers concerned by preventing them from resuming marketing milk. Since, moreover, the damage was not caused instantaneously but recurred on a daily basis, with respect to the date of the event which interrupted the limitation period, the time bar under Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice applies to the period preceding that date by more than five years and does not affect rights which arose during subsequent periods.
A Saggio, P
T-20/94, [1997] EUECJ T-20/94
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172786
ECFI Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Sheepmeat and goatmeat – Variable slaughter premium – Equivalent amount levied on export to another Member State (`clawback’) – Recovery of clawback unlawfully charged – Detailed rules laid down by Regulation No 1922/92 – Breach of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty or proportionality – None
(Commission Regulation No 1922/92, Art. 2)
In so far as Article 2 of Regulation No 1922/92 amending Regulation No 1633/84 laying down detailed rules for applying the variable slaughter premium for sheep and determining the conditions for the reimbursement of the clawback following the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151/90 Lomas and Others provides for reimbursement merely of the difference between the clawback paid under Article 4 of the amended Regulation and the amount of the premium actually received, it breaches neither the principle of protection of legitimate expectations nor the principle of legal certainty. Given that the requests for payment of the clawback under Article 4 were not wholly devoid of legal authority, that the operators granted a premium should have expected that it would have to be recouped on export of the products and that the national law applicable on the date of the Court’s judgment made it difficult to recover in full amounts unlawfully charged by a public authority, it does not appear that the traders concerned could legitimately harbour the slightest expectation, based on the facts or on national law, of full recovery of the clawback paid before that judgment was delivered.
Nor is the validity of Article 2(1) affected by the fact that the second subparagraph thereof provides an alternative method of calculating the amount to be reimbursed, based on the average amount of the premiums over a period of four weeks, since that alternative was made available in recognition of the difficulties encountered by some operators in providing proof as to premiums actually paid.
So far as concerns the difficulties mentioned above, the placing of the burden of proof on the exporters is not manifestly inappropriate and consequently does not contravene the principle of proportionality, since a prudent trader, knowing that he would be liable to pay the clawback, should have taken the necessary steps to obtain the evidence which would be required in due course to establish the amounts in question.
T-455/93, [1997] EUECJ T-455/93
Commission Regulation No 1922/92, Art. 2
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172684
Lord Abernethy and Lord Allanbridge and Lord Kirkwood
[1999] ScotCS 220
See Also – Morrison-Low v The Executors of Thomas Herbert Paterson SCS 9-Feb-2012
False . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169528
The applicants sought an order that the government enquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak should be held in public. They argued that the need to re-establish public faith made a decision not to hold the enquiries in public irrational, and that a failure to hold the enquiry in public infringed the applicant’s human rights.
Held: The distinction between freedom of expression, and of access to information was central. Art 10 created no obligation to provide a public forum for discussion of issues. On the question of whether there is a presumption that an inquiry would be held in public (Wagstaff), this must be approached on a case by case basis with no presumption either way.
Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Scott Baker
Times 28-Mar-2002, Gazette 23-May-2002, [2002] EWHC 371 (Admin), [2003] QB 794, [2002] 3 WLR 704
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health, Ex Parte Wagstaff etc QBD 31-Aug-2000
The Secretary of State announced a public enquiry into the Shipman case. He did not say whether it would be a public enquiry. The bereaved families and media wanted it to be public, and contended that it had been invalidly constituted, that an . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168069
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg – Germany. Common agricultural policy – Support system for oil-seeds – Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 525/93.
C-37/00, [2002] EUECJ C-328/00, [2002] EUECJ C-37/00, C-328/00
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167759
[2001] EWCA Civ 1569
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167783
The tenant took farm premises subject to a lease allowing its use for farming purposes only. It prevented its use as a market garden, which would have allowed compensation to be claimed on its termination. He had come to operate several activities from the farm. The landlords claimed that the new activities were in breach of the tenancy agreement.
Held: The tenancy, not the 1948 Act, defined the uses permitted by the lease. The proposed activities of a farm shop and educational visits were not agricultural purposes within the meaning of the tenancy agreement.
Lord Justice Mance, And, Mr. Justice Park
Gazette 14-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 145
Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
England and Wales
Cited – Howkins v Jardine CA 1951
There was a tenancy from year to year of 7 acres which had on them three cottages, which the tenant in fact sub-let to persons not engaged in agriculture. The tenancy itself contained provisions usual in agricultural tenancies, and the tenant used . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167734
EXCISE DUTY – use of red diesel – assessment in relation to a number of vehicles – HMRC v Jones and Jones considered – whether one vehicle was an excepted vehicle within Schedule 1 HODA 1979 – agricultural tractor – appeal allowed in part.
[2012] UKFTT 588 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.466182
INCOME TAX – section 221 ITTOIA 2005 – averaging of farming profits – treatment of losses – whether inability to average losses is discriminatory – no – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKUT B3 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.460112
The claimants were farmers, who had been made subject to orders under the Act. They had accumulated maggot waste on their land. The second defendant accepted that the waste included material which would be high risk under the Directive. The defendant had entered the claimant’s land to execute works required under the notice, and the claimant argued this interfered with their property rights under the Convention. The maggot waste which had been supplied to him had included other animal wastes.
Held: Neither the Act for the Order allowed any provision for an appeal. Was judicial review a sufficient alternative remedy? Some of the significant decisions predated the Human Rights Act, and the actual procedure adopted allowed representations to be made, and for review if necessary. The Act was compliant.
Mr Nigel Pleming QC (Sitting As A Deputy High Court Judge
[2001] EWHC Admin 1047
Animal Health Act 1981, Animal By-Products Order 1999, European Convention on Human Rights, Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27th November 1990.
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – McLellan v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council v Benfield and Another CA 16-Oct-2001
The tenant was issued with a notice to quit for unpaid rent, within the first year, during an ‘introductory tenancy.’ She sought judicial review on the basis that the reduced security of tenure infringed her human rights.
Held: Review was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167368
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) – United Kingdom. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Attribution as ‘C sugar’ of a quantity of sugar produced during a given marketing year – Charge payable in respect of sugar disposed of on the internal market – Levied in the case of export with an export licence – Export refunds.
C-101/99, [2002] EUECJ C-101/99
European
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167377
The claimants asserted that citrus fruit exported from Turkish Cyprus via Turkey, and certified in Turkey, should not be imported. Imports required phytosanitary certificates conforming to European standards. They asserted that the regulations required the goods to certified in their country of origin. The European court had said that certificates issued in third countries could be valid under appropriate circumstances, according to the matters certified. The question has not been settled as to the application of the certificate to the packaging in a third country and the question referred to the European Court.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead
[2001] UKHL 71, [2002] Eu LR 55
Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 (1993 No 1320) Schedule 4A2 (31.1), Directive 77/93/EC 9(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Aksionairnoye Obschestvo A M Luther v James Sagor and Co CA 1921
A claim was made as to property seized by a decree of Russian revolutionaries later recognised as the government.
Held: A court is required to recognise a foreign state’s dealings with private proprietary rights within its jurisdiction. An . .
Cited – Regina v Treasury and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Ex Parte Daily Mail and General Trust Plc ECJ 27-Sep-1988
. .
Cited – TV10 v Commissariaat voor de Media (Judgment) ECJ 5-Oct-1994
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167067
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Withdrawal – Interpretation and validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 1521/95 and 1576/95 – Failure to state reasons
C-228/99, [2001] EUECJ C-228/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001, [2001] ECR I-8401
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166865
The respondent farmers charged the farm by way of an agricultural floating charge to the claimants. On coming into difficulties, they set up a limited company and granted a tenancy in its favour and transferred assets to it. The bank obtained declarations that the charges remained valid and that the new tenancies and assignments should be set aside. The tenants appealed, but failed. The admitted purpose of the transactions was to put the assets beyond the reach of the bank, and that they were at an undervalue. The Agricultural Credits Act operated therefore to crystallise the charge. As to s423, it: ‘requires a comparison to be made between two figures. For that purpose the court must arrive at a conclusion based on actual values. The evidence may, of course, disclose a range of suggested figures. But the court must ascertain from the evidence the actual value against which the consideration for the transaction must be measured. That was the approach adopted by the judge. It is correct.’
Judge LJ, Mummery LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Gazette 15-Nov-2001, Times 19-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1541, [2002] 1 BCLC 55
Insolvency Act 1986 423, Agricultural Credits Act 1928 7
England and Wales
Appeal from – National Westminster Bank Plc v Jones and Others ChD 7-Jul-2000
A transaction could be deemed to be at an undervalue and caught by the section even though it made no difference to the overall assets and even though only one rather than the generality of creditors was prejudiced by the transaction. Here, by . .
Cited – Re Thoars (Dec’d); Reid v Ramlort Ltd ChD 2003
The company claimed the benefit of an insurance policy. They had paid certain premiums and the trustee had made a declaration that it was held on trust for the company. The insured died in Scotland, intestate and insolvent.
Held: The . .
Cited – Ramlort Ltd v Michael James Meston Reid CA 8-Jul-2004
The company sought to claim under a life policy. The deceased had died in Scotland insolvent. The trustee of the policy had declared that he held it on trust for the claimant, but the defendant, the judicial factor of the estate, said the . .
Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166777
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 (independent tribunal); No violation of Art. 6-1 (fair trial); Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The applicant was a dairy farmer. Under the scheme operated within the European Community for reducing surplus milk products, he was allocated a milk production quota. His claim for a higher quota was rejected, as was his subsequent appeal before the relevant authorities in his country. He complained that his right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6(1) of the Convention had been infringed.
Held: There had been a violation of Article 6.1 in that the applicant’s civil rights and obligations had not been ‘determined’ by a ‘tribunal’ within the meaning of that provision. The binding decision of an impartial tribunal could not be altered by a non-judicial authority to the detriment of an individual. The opportunity to a party to have knowledge and comment must be a genuine one.
(Commission) ‘Article 6(1) extends only to disputes over ‘civil rights and obligations’ which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. Such a dispute must be genuine and of a serious nature; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its existence and, finally, the result of the proceedings concerning the dispute at issue must be directly decisive for such a right.
It is not contested that there was a ‘dispute’ concerning a ‘right’ since the allocation of both a milk-quota and an extra levy-free quota conferred a ‘right’ to the applicant to produce a determined quantity of milk, subject to the condition that a levy must be paid for any surplus.
The size of a milk-quota determines for each diary farmer the quantity of milk he is authorised to produce. It is therefore decisive for his income. The fact that in addition a milk-quota is transferable confers to it the character of, in the words the European Court of Human Rights, a ‘pecuniary’ right. Thus the allocation or refusal of a milk-quota may seriously affect a milk producers business activities. A dispute concerning the granting of a higher quota therefore involves the determination of civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Convention.’
[1994] ECHR 14, 16034/90, (1994) 18 EHRR 481
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited – Williams and Another v Hinton and Another CA 14-Oct-2011
The appellant landlords appealed against the award of damages to their former tenants under the 1985 and 1972 Acts. The judge had proceeded to hear the case in their absence.
Held: The court considered whether the appellants should instead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165320
(Judgment) Community law did not recognise the rights of animals as fundamental. The applicant owned animals, which fell to be destroyed as part of a preventive cull to protect against the spread of foot and mouth disease. The animals would not be moved nor mix with other animals. They claimed that the ban on vaccination which left the cull as an only alternative, was made without regard to a principle of promoting the welfare of animals. The protection of animals was neither an objective of the community, nor a principle of law. The directive was not manifestly inappropriate.
ECJ Agriculture – Control of foot-and-mouth disease – Prohibition of vaccination – Principle of proportionality – Taking animal welfare into account
‘the criterion to be applied is not whether the measure adopted by the legislature was the only one or the best one possible but whether it was manifestly inappropriate’
Times 19-Jul-2001, [2001] EUECJ C-189/01, C-189/01, [2001] ECR I-5689, ECLI:EU:C:2001:420
Cited – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162815
ECJ Articles 9(1), 10(1) and 20(2) to (6) of Regulation No 2730/79 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version resulting from Regulation No 568/85, must be interpreted as meaning that a Community exporter can forfeit his right to payment of a non-differentiated export refund if (a) the product in respect of which the export refund was paid, and which is sold to a purchaser established in a non-member country, is, immediately after its release for home use in that non-member country, transported back to the Community under the external Community transit procedure and is there released for home use on payment of import duties, without any infringement being established and (b) that operation constitutes an abuse on the part of that Community exporter. A finding that there is an abuse presupposes an intention on the part of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the conditions for obtaining it. Evidence of this must be placed before the national court in accordance with the rules of national law, for instance by establishing that there was collusion between that exporter and the importer of the goods into the non-member country. The fact that, before being re-imported into the Community, the product was sold by the purchaser established in the non-member country concerned to an undertaking also established in that country with which he has personal and commercial links is one of the facts which can be taken into account by the national court when ascertaining whether the conditions giving rise to an obligation to repay refunds are fulfilled.
The exporter was refused a rebate of duty to which he was entitled on the face of the relevant Commission Regulation upon the export of his goods, because he had abused the law by claiming it in respect of goods which had been exported to a third country only to be at once re-imported into the country of origin. The court held at para 59 that:
‘a finding that there has been an abuse presupposes an intention on the part of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the conditions for obtaining it.’
The essential reason why the trading scheme failed was that the choice of a circular supply route did not involve a choice between different methods of achieving the trader’s commercial purpose. It had no commercial purpose other than the avoidance of tax.
G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, P
C-110/99, [2000] ECR I-11569, [2000] EUECJ C-110/99
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Debenhams Retail Plc CA 18-Jul-2005
The store introduced a system whereby when a customer paid by credit card, the charges made to them for card handling were expressed as a separate amount on the receipt. The store then said that VAT was payable only on the net amount allocated to . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Debenhams Retail Plc CA 18-Jul-2005
The store introduced a system whereby when a customer paid by credit card, the charges made to them for card handling were expressed as a separate amount on the receipt. The store then said that VAT was payable only on the net amount allocated to . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Pendragon Plc and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
‘This appeal is about an elaborate scheme designed and marketed by KPMG relating to demonstrator cars used by retail distributors for test drives and other internal purposes. In the ordinary course, a car distributor will buy new cars for use as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162629
ECJ 1. Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as amended by Directive 97/35, is to be interpreted as meaning that, if, after an application for placing a GMO on the market has been forwarded to the Commission, no Member State has raised an objection, in accordance with Article 13(2) of that directive, or if the Commission has taken a favourable decision under paragraph (4) of that provision, the competent authority which forwarded the application, with a favourable opinion, to the Commission must issue the consent in writing, allowing the product to be placed on the market. However, if in the meantime the Member State concerned has new information which leads it to consider that the product for which notification has been received may constitute a risk to human health and the environment, it will not be obliged to give its consent, provided that it immediately informs the Commission and the other Member States about the new information in order that, within the period laid down in Article 16(2) of Directive 90/220, a decision may be taken in the matter in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 21 of that directive.
2. Where the national court finds that, owing to irregularities in the conduct of the examination of the notification by the competent national authority provided for in Article 12(1) of Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as amended by Directive 97/35, it was not proper for that authority to forward the dossier with a favourable opinion to the Commission as provided for in paragraph (2) of that provision, that court must refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling if it considers that those irregularities are such as to affect the validity of the Commission’s favourable decision, if necessary ordering the suspension of application of the measures for implementing that decision until the Court of Justice has ruled on the question of validity.
C-6/99, [2000] EUECJ C-6/99
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162582
ECJ Beef and veal – Premium for early marketing of calves – Grant dependent on average carcase weight of calves slaughtered in each Member State during 1995 – Validity under Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 34(2) EC)
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, P
C-56/99, [2000] EUECJ C-56/99
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162608
(Judgment) Agriculture – Common organisation of the agricultural markets – Market in wine – Compulsory distillation scheme
C-155/99, [2000] EUECJ C-155/99
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162648
ECJ Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Structural reform Improving the efficiency of structures – Recognising the status of farmers practising farming as their main occupation Regulations Nos 797/85 and 2328/91 – Reliance before a national court by limited companies in the absence of implementing measures in the national legal system Not permissible (Council Regulations No 797/85, Art. 2(5), and No 2328/91, Art. 5(5)) – The last subparagraph of Article 2(5) of Regulation No 797/85 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures and the last subparagraph of Article 5(5) of Regulation No 2328/91 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures may not be relied on before a national court by limited companies seeking to obtain the status of farmers practising farming as their main occupation where the legislature of a Member State has not adopted the provisions necessary for their implementation in the national legal system.
C-403/98, [2001] ECR 1-103, [2001] EUECJ C-403/98
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162531
Judgment – Appeal – Aquaculture – Regulations (EEC) No bones 4028/86 and 1116/88 – Community financial aid – Reduction of aid
[1999] EUECJ C-10/98P
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162310
(Judgment) Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Identification of waters affected by pollution – Designation of vulnerable zones – Criteria – Validity in the light of the polluter pays principle, the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, the principle of proportionality and the right to property
C-293/97, [1999] EUECJ C-293/97
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162206
ECJ Poultry cuts made up of two hind quarters of a fowl still attached to one another by the skin of the back constitute `quarters’ (code 0207 41 11 000) within the meaning of the nomenclature of agricultural products for export refunds established by Regulation No 3846/87.
First, because of their composition, the products in question correspond exactly to the definition of hind quarters in accordance with the general rules for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature, with one difference, namely that, because of the way in which they are cut, the two quarters are not wholly separated; secondly, that fact does not affect the product’s essential characteristic – within the meaning of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature – of being constituted of two hind quarters of chicken.
C-290/97, [1998] EUECJ C-290/97
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162203
(Judgment) Wine – New planting of vines – Table grapes
C-308/97, [1998] EUECJ C-308/97, [1998] ECR I-7685
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162216
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division – United Kingdom. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Beef – Export refunds -Beef of British origin repatriated to the United Kingdom as a result of the announcements and decisions made in relation to ‘mad cow disease’ – Force majeure. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Refunds paid in advance – Goods exported and repatriated, on account of force majeure, to the Member State of export – Repayment of refunds paid in advance – Obligation incumbent on the exporter – Beef from the United Kingdom hit by the export ban imposed by Decision 96/239 – Regulation No 3665/87 not permitting exporters to retain refunds paid in advance – Breach of the principles of force majeure, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity – None – Validity of Regulation No 773/96 (Council Regulation No 565/80; Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 5(1), 23 and 33, and Commission Regulation No 773/96; Commission Decision 96/239).
Articles 23 and 33 of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version thereof resulting from Regulation No 1615/90, must be interpreted as meaning that where, as a result of, in particular, force majeure, goods do not reach their country of destination but are repatriated to the Member State of export, the exporter is obliged to repay any export refunds paid in advance. In such a situation, the formalities for release of the product for consumption in the country of destination have not been completed, so that it cannot be regarded, for the purposes of payment of the differentiated refund, as having been imported within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 3665/87. By prohibiting, in particular, exporters of beef from the United Kingdom from retaining all or part of any export refunds paid in advance in circumstances where (1 exports of beef from the United Kingdom to third countries have been prohibited by Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, (2 bans on the importation of beef from the United Kingdom have also been imposed by a number of third countries, (3 exporters of beef were in the process of carrying goods to third countries on the date on which Decision 96/239 was adopted, (4 those exporters were forced to repatriate the beef to the United Kingdom, (5 the exporters had received, in accordance with Regulation No 565/80 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products and Regulation No 3665/87, advance payments of export refunds in respect of the export transactions in issue, and (6 the exporters suffered loss as a result of their inability to sell their beef on the export markets in question, Regulation No 3665/87 does not contravene the general principles of Community law, in particular the principles of force majeure, the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity. Furthermore, and since none of those principles require exporters, in the circumstances described, to be authorised to retain all or part of any refunds, the fact that Regulation No 773/96 laying down special measures derogating from Regulations No 3665/87, No 3719/88 and No 1964/82 in the beef and veal sector does not provide for such retention does not render it invalid
C-263/97, [1997] Eu LR 195, [1998] EUECJ C-263/97
Reference from – Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex parte First City Trading Limited and Others Admn 26-Mar-1997
. .
See Also – Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and Another Ex Parte First City trading Etc QBD 20-Dec-1996
EU law principles do not apply in domestic law unless implementing EU law. Laws J said that: ‘Wednesbury and European review are two different models – one looser, one tighter -of the same juridical concept, which is the imposition of compulsory . .
Cited – Devenish Nutrition Ltd and others v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and others ChD 19-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the losses it had suffered as a result of price fixing by the defendant companies in the vitamin market. The European Commission had already fined the defendant for its involvement.
Held: In an action for breach . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162183
(Judgment) Additional levy on milk – Specific reference quantity – Final award – Conditions
C-374/96, [1998] EUECJ C-374/96
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161992
(Judgment) Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Production refunds – System of securities – Time-limits – Primary requirement – Subordinate requirement
C-287/96, [1998] EUECJ C-287/96
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161936
(Judgment) In the context of intervention measures in the beef and veal sector, and in particular of the system of buying-in by tendering procedures, Article 9(1) of Regulation No 859/89 provides that tenderers must undertake to comply with all the relevant provisions and Article 9(2) that interested parties may submit one tender only per category in response to each invitation to tender. Since the need to ensure legal certainty means that rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them, the wording of Article 9(2) cannot provide any support for the interpretation that, on account of the difference in meaning between the words `interested party’ and `tenderers’, the latter may submit one tender only in response to an invitation to tender where they are part of a single group. Such an interpretation would thus be tantamount to applying retroactively Article 11 of Regulation No 2456/93, which introduces into the Community legislation provisions on the relationship between tenderers. That being the case, although the rule that tenders must be independent, an essential requirement for the validity and effectiveness of any tender procedure, which underlies Articles 9(6) (confidentiality of tenders), 12(2) (prohibition on the transfer of rights and obligations arising from the tender procedure), 9(4)(c) (tenderers’ obligation to lodge a security) and 15 (tenderers’ obligation to receive payment personally) of Regulation No 859/89 and Article 6(6) of Regulation No 805/68 (equality of access for all persons concerned), does not prevent several companies belonging to one group from taking part at the same time in one tender procedure, it does preclude those same companies from agreeing on the terms and conditions of the tenders which they each submit, if the tender procedure is not to be distorted.
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 729/70, which constitutes a specific expression in the agricultural area of the obligations imposed on Member States by Article 5 of the Treaty, defines the principles according to which the Community and the Member States must ensure the implementation of Community decisions on agricultural intervention financed by the EAGGF and combat fraud and irregularities in relation to those operations. It imposes on the Member States the general obligation to take the measures necessary to satisfy themselves that the transactions financed by the EAGGF are actually carried out and are executed correctly, even if the specific Community act does not expressly provide for the adoption of particular supervisory measures, particularly when there is evidence such as to give rise to serious suspicions that a prohibition laid down by the Community act in question has been circumvented.
Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 729/70 permit the Commission to charge to the EAGGF only sums paid in accordance with the rules laid down in the various sectors of agricultural production, leaving the Member States to bear the burden of any other sum paid, and in particular any amounts which the national authorities wrongly believed themselves authorised to pay in the context of the common organisation of the markets. Although it is therefore for the Commission to prove an infringement of the Community rules, the Member State concerned must demonstrate that the Commission committed an error as to the financial consequences to be attributed to it. Where it has established that a Member State infringed several Community rules in the field of agriculture and that harm was probably caused to the Community budget, the Commission cannot be required to do more, since it cannot carry out systematic checks and analysis of the current state of a given market depends on information gathered by the Member States.
The extent of the obligation to state reasons, laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty, depends on the nature of the measure in question and on the context in which it was adopted. A decision concerning the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF by which the charging to the EAGGF of part of the expenditure declared is refused does not require detailed reasons if the government concerned was closely involved in the process by which the decision came about and is therefore aware of the reason for which the Commission considers that it must not charge the sums in dispute to the EAGGF.
[1998] EUECJ C-209/96
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161895
ECJ Milk – Additional levy scheme – Additional reference quantity – Temporary withdrawal – Conversion into a definitive reduction – Loss of compensation – General principles of law and fundamental rights
C-186/96, [1998] EUECJ C-186/96
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161880
ECJ Order – 1. It is open to the Court hearing an application for interim relief to order the suspension of the operation of an act, or other interim measures, if it is established that such an order is justified, prima facie, in fact and in law and that it is urgent in so far as it must, in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the applicant’ s interests, be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. The Court is also to balance the interests at stake. Suspension and other measures granted under Article 186 of the Treaty must, moreover, be provisional inasmuch as they must not prejudge the points of law or fact in issue or neutralize in advance the effects of the decision subsequently to be given in the main action.
In the context of that overall examination, the Court hearing the application enjoys a broad discretion and is free to determine, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which those various conditions are to be examined, there being no rule of Community law imposing a preestablished scheme of analysis by reference to which the need to order interim measures must be assessed.
2. The urgency of an interim measure must be considered by reference to whether it is necessary to make a provisional ruling in order to avoid the occurrence of serious and irreparable harm as a result of immediate application of the measure contested in the main action. As regards the nature of the harm which may be invoked, it must be noted that the Member States are responsible for those interests, in particular of an economic and social nature, which are regarded as general interests at national level and are thereby entitled to defend such interests before the courts. They may therefore invoke damage affecting a whole sector of their economy, in particular when the contested Community measure may entail unfavourable repercussions on the level of employment and the cost of living.
3. Where an applicant seeking suspension of operation of a measure invokes the risk of its suffering serious and irreparable harm, the Court hearing the application must determine, when balancing the interests at stake, whether the possible annulment of the contested decision by the Court seised of the main action would allow the situation brought about by its immediate implementation to be reversed and, conversely, whether suspension of the operation of that decision would be such as to prevent its being fully effective in the event of the main application being dismissed.
4. An application by the United Kingdom for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy or even of part of it, or for interim measures qualifying its application, cannot be granted. Whilst some of the pleas in law put forward by the Member State contesting the lawfulness of that decision cannot be wholly ruled out at the stage of examination of the interim application, the Commission has none the less presented serious arguments as to the lawfulness of its decision as a whole. Furthermore, the balancing of the interests at stake inevitably leads to recognition that the protection of public health against a fatal risk, which can in no way be ruled out in the present state of scientific knowledge, must take precedence over the economic and social damage which the Member State may invoke as being likely to result from the application of the said decision, even if that damage is not easily reparable.
Europa In order for an act of the Council or the Commission to form the subject-matter of an action for annulment, it must be intended to have legal effects. That is not the position in the case of an act of the Commission which reflects its intention, or that of one of its departments, to follow a particular line of conduct or which merely confirms a previous act in such a way that annulment of the confirmatory act would follow from annulment of the previous act.
In adopting Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which imposes, on a temporary basis, a total ban on exports of bovine animals, bovine meat and derived products from the territory of the United Kingdom to the other Member States and to third countries, the Commission acted within the framework of the powers conferred on it by Directives 90/425 and 89/662 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade. First, the conditions governing the adoption of safeguard measures in accordance with those two directives were fulfilled, particularly since the power to adopt such measures is justified by the fact that a zoonosis, disease or other cause is likely to constitute a serious hazard. Second, having regard, in particular, to the fact that the directives are drafted in very wide terms, without imposing any restrictions as to the temporal or territorial scope of the measures concerned, it does not appear that the Commission clearly exceeded the bounds of its broad discretion in seeking to contain the disease within the territory of the United Kingdom by banning exports from that territory to other Member States and to third countries. Lastly, the decision is not vitiated by misuse of powers, since the Commission was prompted to act by concerns as to the risk of transmissibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to humans, after examining the measures adopted by the United Kingdom and consulting the Scientific Veterinary Committee and the Standing Veterinary Committee, its exclusive or main purpose not being to protect economic interests rather than health.
Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which imposes, on a temporary basis, a total ban on exports of bovine animals, bovine meat and derived products from the territory of the United Kingdom to the other Member States and to third countries, fulfils the requirement to provide a statement of reasons, does not breach the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination or legal certainty and is in accordance with the objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39(1) of the Treaty. As regards, more particularly, the principle of proportionality, it was open to the Commission, in view of the great uncertainty as to the risks posed by the animals and products concerned, to take the protective measures in issue without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks became fully apparent. As regards the principle of non-discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, the fact that, at the time of adoption of the decision, almost all the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Europe were recorded in the United Kingdom meant that the situation in that Member State could not be regarded as comparable with that in the other Member States.
Article 43 of the Treaty is the appropriate legal basis for any legislation concerning the production and marketing of agricultural products listed in Annex II to the Treaty which contributes to the achievement of one or more of the objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39 of the Treaty. In that connection, and having regard to the importance of the role played by the free movement of animals, animal products and products of animal origin in achieving those objectives, Article 43 constituted the appropriate legal basis for the adoption of Directives 90/425 and 89/662 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade, even though those directives authorise the Commission incidentally to adopt safeguard measures covering `products of animal origin’, `products derived from those products’ and `products derived’ from animals which are not included in Annex II to the Treaty.
Times 06-May-1998, C-180/96, [1996] EUECJ C-180/96R
See Also – United Kingdom v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-3903) (Order) ECJ 12-Jul-1996
. .
Cited – United Kingdom v Commission ECJ 5-May-1998
Agriculture – Animal health – Emergency measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy – ‘Mad cow disease’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161875
Europa Appeal – Bananas – Third country imports – Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 – Import licences for bananas from ACP States – Measures under Article 20(d) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 – Non- contractual liability of the Community.
C-295/03, [2005] EUECJ C-295/03
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.228053
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) – United Kingdom. Common agricultural policy – Articles 32 EC to 38 EC – Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 – Common organisation of the market in milk and milk products – Target price for milk – Regulation No 26 – Application of certain competition rules to the production of and trade in agricultural products – Whether Member States may apply national competition rules to milk producers who choose to organise themselves into cooperatives and hold market power.
The claimants asserted that the Respondents had sought to interfere wrongfully in their commercial activities insofar as they sought to create vertical integration of their market, ading new products to their existing ones.
Held: The existence of an EC community organisation of a particular economic sector, in this case the market for milk products, did not preclude a national authority involving itself in the regulation of that sector within its boundary provided it took no step which might undermine or create exceptions to that common organisation. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.
C-137/00, Times 25-Sep-2003, [2003] EUECJ C-137/00
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.186312
ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfil obligations – Council Directives 90/219/EEC and 90/220/EEC – Genetically modified organisms. A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.
C-312/95, [1996] EUECJ C-312/95
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161691
ECJ Judgment – Common agricultural policy – Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 – Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes – Implementing rules – Interpretation and validity of penalties
C-354/95, [1997] EUECJ C-354/95, [1997] ECR I-4559
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161719
ECJ (Judgment) The Commission said France had failed to fulfil its obligations under the common organisation of the markets in agricultural, products and under Article 30, in conjunction with Article 5, of the EC Treaty. There had been for more than a decade violent acts committed by individuals and by protest movements of French farmers directly against agricultural products from other Member States. Lorries were damaged, their loads destroyed, shops selling the goods were threatened and the goods damaged. There was ‘a systematic campaign to restrict the supply of agricultural products from other Member States’. France had failed to take adequate or proportionate measures to deter the perpetrators of such offences. France replied that it had condemned the acts, brought criminal prosecutions and monitored what was happening.
Held: ‘it is a fact that, year after year, serious incidents have gravely jeopardised trade in agricultural products in France’. Some incidents went on for several hours and only a very small number of the participants had been prosecuted. Article 30 ‘also applies where a Member State abstains from adopting the measures required in order to deal with obstacles to the free movement of goods which are not caused by the State. . . . Article 30 therefore requires the Member States. . . . when read with Article 5 of the Treaty, to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that that fundamental freedom is respected on their territory’. France had ‘manifestly and persistently abstained from adopting appropriate and adequate measures to put an end to the acts of vandalism which jeopardise the free movement on its territory’ of agricultural products from other Members States. Franve had failed in its Treaty obligations.
Europa Free movement of goods – Agricultural products – Trade barriers resulting from actions by private individuals – Obligations of the Member States.
C-265/95, [1997] EUECJ C-265/95
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader’s Ferry Limited HL 2-Apr-1998
Chief Constable has a Wide Discretion on Resources
Protesters sought to prevent the appellant’s lawful trade exporting live animals. The police provided assistance, but then restricted it, pleading lack of resources. The appellants complained that this infringed their freedom of exports under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161655
ECJ 1 Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Beef and veal – Import rules – Community tariff quotas – Conditions of eligibility for operators other than traditional importers – Export thresholds higher than those required for the two preceding quotas – Misuse of powers – None – Principle of proportionality – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Duty to state reasons – Breach – None (Council Regulation No 130/94; Commission Regulation No 214/94, Art. 1(2))
2 Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Discrimination between producers or consumers – Import rules governing eligibility for the Community tariff quota for certain kinds of frozen beef – Possibility for traditional importers to cumulate rights of access to the quota in the case of company mergers – Other operators not permitted to do so – No discrimination (EC Treaty, Art. 40(3); Commission Regulation No 214/94, Art. 2(2))
3 Since the purpose of Regulation No 130/94 opening a Community tariff quota for certain kinds of frozen beef is to guarantee equal and continuing access to the quota for all interested operators within the Community, the Commission did not exceed the powers conferred on it by that regulation when it provided in Article 1(2) of Regulation No 214/94 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 130/94 that the part of the quota available to operators other than traditional importers was to be restricted to applicants who could furnish proof of having exported to third countries during the reference period a minimum quantity of beef greater than that required for the two preceding quotas. Although the criteria of eligibility for the quota which the Commission was called upon to lay down were required to be such as to guarantee equal and continuing access only for operators who had imported or exported significant amounts, Regulation No 130/94 did not require it to link export thresholds directly to developments in trade with third countries. Furthermore, the criteria laid down by the Commission rightly deter the proliferation of `paper companies’ reflecting the artificial fragmentation by certain traders of their economic structure, which is liable to disrupt the scheme because it increases the number of applications and thereby reduces the quantities available for genuine small operators, who thus risk being excluded from the quota altogether. The raising of the export thresholds by the Commission did not breach the principle of proportionality, either, because in the light of the purpose of the scheme it was reasonable that the effect of the change be to deprive of the right to participate in the quota a large number of undertakings created artificially for the sole purpose of obtaining a larger share of the quota, there being no proof that the increase prevented a large number of genuinely small operators from obtaining a share of the quota. Likewise, it did not breach the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations because any prudent and diligent trader must know that the export thresholds may be altered whenever a new annual quota is adopted, and the premature announcement of the new eligibility criteria would encourage the creation of `paper companies’ precisely to meet the new thresholds, thus enabling large groups to obtain maximum advantage from the quota. Finally, the duty to state reasons for the increase was complied with, since the preambles to Regulations No 130/94 and No 214/94 state clearly the considerations which led the Commission to alter the eligibility criteria for operators other than traditional importers. 4 The fact that Article 2(2) of Regulation No 214/94 laying down detailed rules for the application of the import rules opening a Community tariff quota for certain kinds of frozen beef deprives companies resulting from mergers who wish to obtain a share of the quota for non-traditional operators of the possibility of cumulating past performance obtained by each of them, a possibility which is available to traditional importers, does not constitute discrimination prohibited by Article 40(3) of the Treaty. The way in which the quota for traditional importers is distributed is not comparable to the way in which the quota reserved for other operators is distributed. The first is allocated among eligible operators in proportion to the imports achieved by each of them, whereas the second is allocated in proportion not to imports or exports, but to the quantities applied for, subject to a maximum per application. Consequently, the cumulation of rights to a share in the traditional quota is not intended to determine the eligibility for the quota of companies arising from mergers which would not otherwise be eligible, but to permit them to cumulate quota shares already held separately by the undertakings involved in the merger.
C-241/95, [1996] EUECJ C-241/95
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161630
(Judgment) 1. When it adopted Regulation No 1932/93 establishing protective measures as regards the import of sour cherries, the Commission was not required to specify therein the time-limit within which any Member State might refer the protective measures adopted to the Council. Council Decision 87/373 laying down the procedures for the exercise of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission, Article 3 of which provides for determination of such a time-limit, applies, according to the second and third recitals in its preamble, only to the powers conferred after its entry into force and cannot therefore affect the validity of implementing measures adopted on the basis of implementing powers conferred on the Commission before it entered into force. Moreover, when the Council decides to use the procedure provided for in Article 3 of that decision, the time-limit within which any Member State may refer to it the decision adopted by the Commission must be indicated in the act by which the Council conferred on the Commission the power to adopt protective measures and not in such decisions as the Commission might adopt on the basis of that power.
2. The protective measures in respect of imports of sour cherries introduced in the fruit and vegetable sector by Regulation No 1932/93 did not contravene the principle of proportionality. Those measures, which were chosen in preference to more inhibitive measures, in particular measures restricting the volume of imports, were suited to the attainment of the objective pursued, namely to arrest the fall in product prices on the Community market and were adopted at a time when a less restrictive system, involving import licences, had proved insufficient.
Neither did they contravene the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, since traders could not legitimately expect that an existing situation which was capable of being altered by decisions taken by the Community institutions would be maintained, particularly in view of the fact that, shortly before the adoption of that regulation, the Commission had established a system of import licences prompted by unfavourable market developments.
Finally, those measures cannot be seen as being in breach of the interim trade agreements concluded by the European Economic Community and the European Coal and Steel Community with the Republic of Poland, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Republic of Hungary, since, although Article 15 of each of those agreements requires each of the parties to enter into consultations where either of them has adopted protective measures concerning trade in agricultural products, that provision is effective only between the contracting parties and provides merely for a formal step to be taken after the adoption of protective measures. It cannot therefore be effectively relied on to contest the validity of the protective measures themselves.
C-64/95, [1996] EUECJ C-64/95
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161530
(Judgment) 1. A Member State cannot rely on practical difficulties related, for example, to deficiencies in its statistical system, in order to justify its failure to adopt appropriate control measures with regard to compliance with fishing quotas. On the contrary, it is for the Member States responsible for implementing Community regulations in the fishery products sector to overcome those difficulties by taking appropriate measures.
In particular, under Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities, Member States must adopt binding measures to prohibit on a provisional basis all fishing activity even before quotas are exhausted when, in the absence of such prohibition, the tonnage caught would be likely to exceed those quotas.
2. Under Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities, where the competent authorities of a Member State observe that the rules concerning fishery conservation and control are not being complied with, they are required to take penal or administrative action. If the competent authorities of a Member State could systematically refrain from taking action against the persons responsible for such infringements, both the conservation and management of fishery resources and the uniform application of the common fisheries policy would be jeopardized. Consequently, when the Commission has fixed a date for prohibiting a type of fishing, a Member State is required to take penal or administrative action against persons responsible for continuing the fishing activities in question and related activities covered by the Community rules. Mere apprehension of internal difficulties, in the form of serious socio-economic problems, cannot justify a failure to apply the rules in question.
C-52/95, [1995] EUECJ C-52/95
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161523
(Order) Agriculture – Financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultry meat – Action for annulment of a directive – Natural or legal persons – Acts concerning them directly and individually – Appeal clearly unfounded.
C-10/95, [1995] EUECJ C-10/95P
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161495
The competent national authority had no duty under Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89, and in particular under Article 3a(1) thereof, to award a provisional special reference quantity exempt from the additional levy on milk to a producer who had obtained primary quota in respect of a separate holding and who, following the dissolution of a partnership in which it was a partner, took over the assets and business of the dissolved partnership and became sole operator of that partnership’ s holding while observing, without having formally undertaken to do so, the non-marketing undertaking previously given by that partnership, and, furthermore, the competent national authority had no power to do so.
To be eligible for a provisional special reference quantity under the relevant rules, the producer must not only have participated, either in that capacity or as successor to an agricultural holding, in a non-marketing scheme such as that established by Regulation No 1078/77, but must also not have obtained a reference quantity under the conditions laid down, inter alia, by Article 2 of Regulation No 857/84. Although the first condition must be regarded as having been satisfied by the producer in question, because the failure to perform a mere formality, such as the giving of a written undertaking to continue to perform the obligations entered into by its predecessor, cannot be regarded as causing the successor to an agricultural holding to be excluded from the non-marketing scheme, as would be the case if it had not in fact observed the non-marketing undertaking, the second condition is not satisfied where that producer has already obtained primary quota under Article 2 of Regulation No 857/84 in respect of the five farms on which it had continued milk production.
The fact that the Court held in its judgment in Case C-264/90 Wehrs v Hauptzollamt Lueneburg [1992] ECR I-6285 that the second indent of Article 3a(1) was invalid in so far as transferees of a premium granted pursuant to Regulation No 1078/77, to whom the producer in question is comparable, were barred from allocation of a special reference quantity if they had received a reference quantity under Article 2 of Regulation No 857/84, neither required nor empowered the competent national authority to award to that producer a special reference quantity, whether provisional or definitive, exempt from the additional levy on milk.
The conclusions which may be drawn in the national legal systems from a ruling of invalidity of a measure adopted by an institution depend, on any view, directly on Community law as it stands in the light of that ruling. In the presence of a complex system such as that of milk quotas, the relevant state of the law following the ruling of invalidity in the judgment in Wehrs and before the adoption of Regulation No 2055/93 did not of itself, that is to say without readjustment of that system, permit the allocation of a special reference quantity to such a producer.
2. The competent national authority had no duty under Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89 and Regulation No 1639/91, and in particular under the second indent of the last subparagraph of Article 3a(1) thereof, to award a special reference quantity exempt from the additional levy on milk to a producer who had commenced production on a holding as sub-tenant after the expiry of a non-marketing period under Regulation No 1078/77 before then becoming also owner of that holding subject to a lease granted to the tenant, nor did it have the power to do so, since that producer, even assuming that the holding had been transferred to him through an inheritance or similar means within the period laid down, could, as successor, claim such a quantity only on the same basis as the originator of the inheritance himself and since the rules in force did not permit the award of such a quantity to any of his predecessors.
The fact that the second indent of Article 3a(1) was declared invalid by the Court in its judgment in Case C-264/90 Wehrs [1992] ECR I-6285 in that it made the award of a reference quantity to a predecessor of the producer subject to a condition which precisely that predecessor did not fulfil, in no way altered the duty or power of the national authority to award a special reference quantity to that producer. That ruling of invalidity cannot by itself give rise, prior to the readjustment of the system of reference quantities which it made necessary, to a right of the predecessor to such a quantity.
The fact that Article 3a, as amended by Regulation No 1639/91, does not permit the award of a reference quantity to that producer does not constitute an infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, since, although he can invoke his status as successor, he cannot, in that capacity, lay claim to more than his predecessors, who could not claim the award of a special reference quantity.
Edward P
C-127/94, [1996] EUECJ C-127/94
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161347
(Judgment) Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Annual questionnaire on the application of the scheme addressed to the Member States – Notification to the Commission – Flat-rate reduction applied to advances on the entry of agricultural expenditure in the accounts in the event of non-compliance with the time-limit – Decision 93/673 – Legal basis – Breach of Regulation No 729/70 or the principle of proportionality – None (Council Regulation No 729/70; Commission Regulation No 536/93, Art. 8, fourth indent; Commission Decision 93/673)
In adopting Decision 93/673 fixing the flat-rate reduction to advances on the entry of agricultural expenditure in the accounts in the event of non-compliance with the time-limit for notification of the annual questionnaire on the application of the additional levy scheme for milk, which provides in particular for a reduction of 1% of the overall amount paid to the Member State concerned for the previous budget year for late notification, 0.5% of the same overall amount for calculation of the levy which is incorrect by more than 10%, and 0.04% for each item of information missing, the Commission validly relied on Article 8, fourth indent, of Regulation No 536/93 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy, which requires Member States to notify the questionnaire, duly completed, before the date given and which authorizes the Commission to make a reduction to advances not only if the notification is late but also if it is incomplete or incorrect.
The above mentioned decision does not infringe Regulation No 729/70 on the financing of the common agricultural policy because the reduction to advances, which cannot be definitive, does not preclude verification of the justification for the reduction in the context of the clearance of accounts provided for by that regulation, in the course of which the Member State concerned will be able to present its views on the lawfulness of the reduction, so that the rights of the defence will be guaranteed.
Lastly, the decision does not breach the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as its aim is to fix, in the interests of uniform application and legal certainty, the way in which the reduction to advances is applied, and to that end defines the various ways in which failure to fulfil the duty to communicate the questionnaire may occur, with the corresponding rate of reduction. In that regard the characteristics attributable to the flat-rate element in the reductions are not sufficient to make the reduction disproportionate, having regard to its aim, since the reductions do not appear to be excessive in view of the importance of due notification for the management of the levy scheme.
[1997] EUECJ C-69/94
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161306
ECJ 1 Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Temporary suspension of a percentage of the reference quantities exempt from the levy – Conversion into definitive reduction without compensation – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – Right to property – Principle of proportionality – Principle of non-discrimination – Breach – None
(EC Treaty, Art. 40(3); Council Regulation No 804/68, Art. 5c3)(g), inserted by Regulation No 816/92, and Regulation No 3950/92, Art. 3, as amended by Regulation No 1560/93)
2 Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope
(EC Treaty, Art. 90)
3 In so far as Article 5c3)(g) of Regulation No 804/68, inserted by Article 1(3) of Regulation No 816/92, and Article 3 of Regulation No 3950/92, as amended by Article 1 of Regulation No 1560/93, converted the temporary withdrawal of a percentage of the reference quantity exempt from the milk levy, within the meaning of Regulation No 775/87, into a definitive reduction of that quantity without compensation for the producers, those provisions do not breach the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, non-discrimination and proportionality or the fundamental right to property.
First, with regard to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, a prudent and discriminating trader should have anticipated, particularly in view of the continuing surpluses on the market in milk, in addition to the gradual decrease in compensation, other measures to reduce milk production, such as the conversion of the temporary suspension of reference quantities into definitive reductions.
Secondly, those regulations, which correspond to aims pursued in the general interest and which seek to remedy the surpluses on the milk products market, do not affect the actual substance of the right to property.
Thirdly, the conversion of the temporary suspension, after five years, into a definitive reduction without compensation does not infringe the principle of proportionality, since, within the framework of the Community legislature’s broad discretionary powers in the field of the common agricultural policy, that conversion does not seem an inappropriate means of achieving the aim of the additional levy scheme, which is to reduce milk production further and permanently.
Finally, it does not conflict with the principle of non-discrimination between producers or consumers, since both beneficiaries of the Community definitive discontinuation of milk production programme and producers who remain active are compensated for the suspended quantities. In fact, while the suspended quantity was included in the calculation of the quantity to be compensated upon definitive discontinuation, the producer who remained active received compensation for the suspended quantity until the end of the eighth 12-month period of the application of the additional levy scheme.
4 The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the institution which enacted the measure so as to inform the persons concerned of the justification for the measure adopted and to enable the Court to exercise its powers of review. It is not necessary, however, for details of all relevant factual and legal aspects to be given, in so far as the question whether the statement of the grounds for a decision meets the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.
JL Murray, P
C-22/94, [1997] EUECJ C-22/94, [1997] 2 CMLR 621, [1997] ECR I-1809
EC Treaty, Art. 40(3), Regulation No 804/68
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161275
(Judgment) Common organization of the market in beef and veal – Conditions for intervention.
C-296/93, [1996] EUECJ C-296/93
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161137
Europa Failure to fulfil obligations – Directives concerning breeding animals of the porcine species, sheep and goats – Failure to transpose. Mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting proper fulfilment of the obligations incumbent on the Member States to which a directive is addressed under Article 189 of the Treaty.
C-384/92, [1993] EUECJ C-384/92
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161002
Europa Where the high seas are concerned, the Community has the same rule-making authority in matters within its jurisdiction as that conferred under international law on the State whose flag the vessel is flying or in which it is registered. It has, in particular, competence to adopt, for vessels flying the flag of a Member State or registered in a Member State, measures for the conservation of the fishery resources of the high seas.
The limitation on the use of driftnets, imposed by Regulation No 345/92 amending for the 11th time Regulation No 3094/86 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources, was adopted primarily in order to ensure the conservation and rational exploitation of fishery resources and to limit the fishing effort. Those rules are therefore an integral part of the common agricultural policy, whose objectives under Article 39 of the Treaty include ensuring the rational development of production and assuring the availability of supplies, and could therefore be validly adopted by the Council solely on the basis of the provisions governing the common fisheries policy. Even if considerations of environmental protection were a contributory factor in the decision to adopt that regulation, that does not of itself mean that it must be covered by Article 130s of the Treaty.
It follows from the wording of Article 2 of Regulation No 170/83 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources that the measures for the conservation of fishery resources need not be completely consistent with the scientific advice and the absence of such advice or the fact that it is inconclusive cannot prevent the Council from adopting such measures as deems necessary for achieving the objectives of the common fisheries policy.
Thus, the Council could prohibit the use of large-scale driftnets under Regulation No 345/92 without exceeding the limits of the discretionary power conferred on it in the implementation of the common agricultural policy. The available scientific advice did not address the problem of the balanced exploitation of all the biological resources of the sea on a lasting basis and in appropriate economic and social conditions and in formulating the prohibition at issue in the light of the Community’ s international duty to cooperate in the conservation and management of the living resources of the high seas the Council was merely conforming with widely-held international opinion.
In exercising its discretion by limiting, in Article 1(8) of Regulation No 345/92, the derogation from the prohibition on driftnets more than 2.5 kilometres long to five kilometres, and until 31 December 1993 only, the Council’ s intention was to proceed gradually towards the ultimate objective of prohibiting all such nets exceeding 2.5 kilometres in length and its action was not contrary to the principle of relative stability or prejudicial to the other objectives of the common fisheries policy. The principle of relative stability of fishing activities defined in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 170/83 relates only to the distribution between the Member States of the volume of catches available to the Community, for each of the stocks of fish considered, and does not apply where fishermen from the Member States may continue to fish even if they are obliged to desist from using certain fishing methods. In pursuing the various objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39 of the Treaty, the Community institutions must constantly reconcile any conflicts between these objectives taken individually and, where necessary, allow any one of them temporary priority in order to satisfy the demands of the economic factors or conditions in view of which their decisions are made.
C-405/92, [1993] EUECJ C-405/92, [1993] ECR I-6133
Cited – Horvath, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 21-Jul-2006
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2004 Regulations whereby the payment under the Single Payment Scheme was reduced because of the existence of a public right of way across the land.
Held: ‘there are cogent arguments for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161020
ECJ Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Sugar – Production quotas – Relationship between sugar manufacturers and beet growers – Offers from the manufacturer to purchase quantities of beet intended for the manufacture of sugar within the limits of the A and B quotas – Detailed rules for the allocation of the quantities to be delivered by sellers – Community powers – Inaction on the part of the Community legislature – Application of national law – Limits
Since the Community legislature has not yet exercised its power under Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector to lay down detailed rules on the allocation among sellers of the quantities of sugar beet which the manufacturer offers to buy before sowing for the manufacture of sugar within the limits of the A and B quotas, Regulation No 1785/81 does not preclude the application, in connection with that allocation, of the principle under cartel law of equal treatment for suppliers and under company law for shareholders in a share company subject to accessory contributions. Although they are empowered to apply their national law, Member States are not dispensed from observing the principles and general rules governing the common agricultural policy.
C-134/92, [1993] EUECJ C-134/92
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160925
ECJ (Judgment) 1. Under the additional milk levy scheme introduced by Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68, as amended by Regulation No 856/84, an owner who during the reference year acquired the whole or part of a holding by sale, lease or inheritance and who resumed milk production at the time when that scheme entered into force, may receive a reference quantity in respect of the quantity of milk produced by the previous farmer in the course of part of the reference year where the Member State concerned, in the exercise of the power conferred by Article 7(1) of Regulation No 857/84 adopting general rules for the application of the said levy, as amended by Regulation No 590/85 and subparagraph 3 of Article 5 of Regulation No 1371/84 laying down detailed rules for the application of the levy, has decided to allocate a reference quantity to producers who find themselves in such circumstances.
2. Articles 3, 3a, 4 and 4a of Regulation No 857/84, as amended, and Article 3 of Regulation No 1371/84 contain an exhaustive list of the special situations in which reference quantities or individual quantities may be allocated and set out precise rules concerning the determination of those quantities. Since no provision of the regulations makes it possible for an owner and new producer who commenced his milk deliveries on the date of entry into force of the additional levy scheme, and whose reference quantity is calculated on the basis of the deliveries made by the previous farmer in the course of only part of the reference year before he ceased his activities, to have account taken, as a result of that fact, of a reference year different from that chosen by the Member State concerned, such taking into account is excluded, even where the deliveries during the reference year are not representative of the production capacity of the holding during that year.
C-189/92, [1994] EUECJ C-189/92
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160933
Application for judicial review of a decision of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development rejecting an application for Sheep Annual Premium made by the applicant for the year 2001.
[2003] NIQB 60
Northern Ireland
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.186268
Europa 1. Article 12(1) of Regulation No 1546/88 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy on milk, as amended by Regulation No 1033/89, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is entitled to use only the periods of application of the additional levy scheme expressly laid down by that provision for the purposes of determining the fat content of milk to be considered representative which is taken into account when determining the reference quantities exempt from the levy. In so far as that provision designates the period to be regarded as the reference period and authorizes the choice of another period, which it also designates, in exceptional cases which it lists exhaustively, it lays down precise rules precluding any other possibility. 2. The difference in treatment between, on the one hand, producers the fat content of whose milk declined abnormally during the two periods of application of the additional levy scheme laid down by Article 12(1) of Regulation No 1546/88 for determining the fat content to be considered representative and, on the other, producers who may rely on a representative fat content within one or other of those periods, is objectively justified by the need to lay down, in the interests of both legal certainty and the effectiveness of the additional levy scheme, a limitation on the number of periods which may be taken into account as reference periods. Consequently, that difference in treatment cannot be described as discriminatory.
C-120/92, [1993] EUECJ C-120/92
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.160914
C-40/92, [1992] EUECJ C-40/92R
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160870
Europa Since the concept of force majeure must be understood in the sense of abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances, beyond the control of the trader concerned, the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due care, a case of force majeure can be held to exist within the meaning of Article 22(4) of Regulation No 262/79 on the sale of butter at reduced prices for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs where the failure to respect the time-limit for the production of proof of the processing of the butter in another Member State is due to the delay taken by the administrative authorities of that State in verifying processing and returning the control document to the authorities in the country of origin if the trader concerned exercised or caused to be exercised all possible care in requesting the administrative authorities of the country in which the butter was processed to complete those operations. The fact that the trader failed to make application for other documents to be accepted as equivalent pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation No 1687/76 laying down common detailed rules for verifying the use and/or destination of products from intervention can be relied on against him only if the actual conduct of the administration concerned did not prevent him from protecting his rights by means of that procedure.
C-50/92, [1993] EUECJ C-50/92
Commission Regulation 1687/76 14, Commission Regulation 1687/76, Art. 14 and 262/79 22(4))
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160877
ECJ In view of the objectives of the system of variable export refunds for which some agricultural products may qualify, it is essential that products subsidized by such refunds actually reach the market of destination and be marketed there. It is for that reason that Article 6(2) and Article 4 of Regulation No 885/68 laying down general rules for granting export refunds on beef and veal and criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds, in conjunction with Article 20(1) of Regulation No 2730/79 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, must be interpreted as meaning that importation into a non-member country may be considered as not having been proved where there is reason to doubt that the goods indicated on the customs entry certificate referred to in Article 20(3) of Regulation No 2730/79 actually gained access to the market of the country of destination.
CN Kakouris, P
C-27/92, [1993] EUECJ C-27/92
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160858
C-321/91, [1993] EUECJ C-321/91
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160829
ECJ (Judgment) The expression ‘areas used for milk production’ in Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1371/84 and in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1546/88, which in the context of the scheme imposing a levy on milk relate to the transfer of reference quantities exempt from the levy when one or more parts of a holding are transferred, must be interpreted as also comprising the yard, buildings and road areas of the holding, provided that they contribute directly or indirectly to the milk production of the holding.
[1992] ECR I-6895, [1992] EUECJ C-79/91
European
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160673
ECJ 1. Where the Court finds in a number of judgments that practices exist in a Member State which are incompatible with the Community rules on the common organizations of the markets and that that Member State has consistently resisted the Commission’ s requests for on-the-spot inquiries, the Commission is entitled, in the context of the procedure for the clearance of EAGGF accounts, to consider that those practices continued after the period to which the Court’ s findings related and, in the absence of proof to the contrary from the Member State concerned, to refuse to charge to the EAGGF expenditure in the sector affected by the unlawful practices. 2. It is for the national authorities which subsequently amend figures of decisive significance for the purposes of the calculation of the amount which the Member State concerned owes to the EAGGF in connection with the co -responsibility levy in the cereals sector to provide sufficient specific information to justify that change. 3. Where the Commission, after receiving a complaint regarding the total forfeiture of a security given by an economic operator which has purchased intervention products, has informed the national authorities concerned that it is possible to recalculate the amount of the security having to be regarded as definitively forfeit and makes that recalculation conditional solely on the primary obligation undertaken by the operator being fulfilled, the national authorities cannot be criticized, on the clearance of the EAGGF accounts, for having effected that recalculation in accordance with a method consistent with the content of the communication sent to them, even though it may be incorrect or incomplete.
C-56/91, [1993] EUECJ C-56/91
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160655