ECJ Common agricultural policy Direct support schemes Regulation (EC) No 1782/ 2003 Article 5 and Annex IV Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental condition Maintenance of rights of way Implementation by a Member State Transfer of powers to regional authorities of a Member State Discrimination contrary to Community law
The Court considered a Memorandum of Understanding between the UK government and the Scottish Government assigning to the devolved administration responsibility for the implementation of Community law concerning the common agricultural policy. The relevant EC Regulation empowered Member States to set minimum standards of compliance at national or regional level. Mr Horvath complained that regulations requiring the maintenance by landowners of public rights of way over agricultural land infringed the Community law principle of equality because equivalent obligations had not been imposed by the devolved administration in Scotland. The Advocate-General, in her Opinion, had advised that differences in the way that Community obligations were implemented by different devolved administrations could not be regarded as discriminatory because they ‘cannot be attributed to the conduct of the same public authority’
Held: The Grand Chamber reached the same conclusion, but on a broader basis, namely that such differences were inherent in the distribution of responsibility for implementing Community law among distinct territorial units of government within a Member State. They were therefore no more discriminatory than differences in the way that EU law was implemented by different Member States:
‘As a preliminary point, it should be pointed out that, in conferring on Member States the responsibility of defining minimum GAEC requirements, the Community legislature gives them the possibility of taking into account the regional differences which exist on their territory.
It should be recalled that, when provisions of the Treaty or of regulations confer power or impose obligations upon the States for the purposes of the implementation of Community law, the question of how the exercise of such powers and the fulfilment of such obligations may be entrusted by Member States to specific national bodies is solely a matter for the constitutional system of each State (Joined Cases 51/71 to 54/71 International Fruit Co and Others [1971] ECR 1107, para 4).
Thus, it is settled case-law that each Member State is free to allocate powers internally and to implement Community acts which are not directly applicable by means of measures adopted by regional or local authorities, provided that that allocation of powers enables the Community legal measures in question to be implemented correctly (Case C-156/91 Hansa Fleisch Ernst Mundt [1992] ECR I-5567, para 23).
The Court has, in addition, held that, where a regulation empowers a Member State to take implementing measures, the detailed rules for the exercise of that power are governed by the public law of the Member State in question (see (Case 230/78) Eridania-Zuccherifici nazionali and Societa italiana per l’industria degli zuccheri [1979] ECR 2749, para 34, and Case C-313/99 Mulligan and Others [2002] ECR I-5719, para 48).
. . It must nevertheless be examined whether, in those circumstances, the mere fact that the rules establishing GAEC laid down by the regional authorities of the same Member State differ constitutes discrimination contrary to Community law.
. . Where, as in the main proceedings, it is the devolved administrations of a Member State which have the power to define the GAEC minimum requirements within the meaning of article 5 of and Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003, divergences between the measures provided for by the various administrations cannot, alone, constitute discrimination. Those measures must, as is clear from para 50 of this judgment, be compatible with the obligations on the Member State in question which stem from that regulation.
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that, where the constitutional system of a Member State provides that devolved administrations are to have legislative competence, the mere adoption by those administrations of different GAEC standards under article 5 of and Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003 does not constitute discrimination contrary to Community law.’
V. Skouris, P
ECLI:EU:C:2009:458, [2009] 30 EG 66, [2009] ECR I-6355, [2009] EUECJ C-428/07
Bailii
egulation (EC) No 1782/ 2003
Citing:
Opinion – Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ECJ 3-Feb-2009
ECJ (Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (United Kingdom).
‘where the constitutional system of a member state provides that devolved . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Agriculture, Constitutional
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.563286