swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Agriculture - From: 1992 To: 1992
This page lists 4 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Faulks v Faulks [1992] 1 EGLR 9
1992
ChD
Chadwick J
Agriculture, Company
One brother, as tenant farmed land under a partnership with his brother. On the death of either partner, an account was to be taken and a valuation. On the death of the tenant, there was a dispute as to whether the value of the farm's milk quotahad become a partnership asset. The surviving brother now appealed against the arbitrator's finding that it was not. Held: The appeal failed. The quota, though registered in the name of the partnership, could not be separated from the land to which it was attached. It would not have been available on a dissoultion of the partnership under the 1890 Act to meet the creditors of the partnership.
Partnership Act 1890
1 Cites
1 Citers
Criminal proceedings against Debus Pretura circondariale di Pordenone et Pretura circondariale di Vigevano (Rec 1992,p I-3617) (Judgment) C-113/91; C-13/91; [1992] EUECJ C-13/91
4 Jun 1992
ECJ
European, Agriculture
Europa 1. In view of the uncertainties in the present state of scientific research in the matter of food additives and of the absence of complete harmonization of national legislation, Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty do not preclude national legislation restricting the use of such substances and laying down a maximum limit on the use of a specific additive in certain products. In applying such legislation to imported products containing a quantity of additives exceeding the limit authorized by the legislation of the importing Member State when that quantity is authorized in the Member State of production, the national authorities must, however, having regard to the principle of proportionality on which the last sentence of Article 36 is based, be restricted to that which is actually necessary for the protection of public health. Accordingly, the use of a specific additive which is authorized in one Member State must be authorized as regards products imported from that State where, both in view of the findings of international scientific research, in particular the work of the Community Scientific Committee for Food and the FAO Codex Alimentarius Committee and of the World Health Organization, and in the light of eating habits in the importing Member State, that additive does not represent a danger to public health and fulfils a real need, in particular of a technological nature. That concept has to be assessed in the light of the raw materials used, having regard to the assessment made by the authorities in the Member State of production and the findings of international scientific research. It follows that Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty preclude national legislation which prohibits, generally and absolutely, the marketing of beers imported from another Member State in which they are lawfully marketed if they contain a quantity of sulphur dioxide exceeding 20 mg per litre, where it is agreed that the absorption of sulphur dioxide on account of the consumption of certain such beers does not entail a serious risk of exceeding the limits on the maximum daily dose of sulphur dioxide allowed by the FAO and the WHO, and that the legislation of the importing Member State authorizes the use of sulphur dioxide in much higher proportions in other beverages, one of which is consumed in much higher quantities than beer in the Member State in question. 2. A national court which is called upon, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of Community law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await the prior setting aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means.
[ Bailii ]
Sanders Adour and Guyomarc'h Orthez v Directeur des services fiscaux des Pyrenees-Atlantiques; ECJ 11-Jun-1992 - C-149/91; [1992] EUECJ C-149/91; [1992] ECR I-3899
Knufer and Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Rheinland v Buchmann [1992] ECR I-6895; [1992] EUECJ C-79/91
17 Dec 1992
ECJ
European, Agriculture
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.
[ Bailii ]
