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: 1993 To: 1993
This page lists 12 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Brown v Tiernan Gazette, 13 January 1993
13 Jan 1993
ChD
Agriculture
Creation of Agricultural tenancy by different tenancies during year.
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 2(3)(a)
Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fish and Food ex parte Cox Times, 16 February 1993
16 Feb 1993
CA
Agriculture, Land
The temporary transferee of part of an agricultural unit which held a dairy quota, must come to be actually operating the agricultural unit before he could make a claim for the transfer of any associated milk quota.
Farmer and Another v Buxted Poultry Ltd; HL 10-Mar-1993 - Gazette, 10 March 1993; [1993] AC 369
Firma Molkerei-Zentrale Sud GmbH and Co. KG v Bundesanstalt fur landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung C-50/92; [1993] EUECJ C-50/92
18 Mar 1993
ECJ
European, Agriculture
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.
Commission Regulation 1687/76 14 - Commission Regulation 1687/76, Art. 14 and 262/79 22(4))
[ Bailii ]
Mollmann-Fleisch v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas; ECJ 31-Mar-1993 - C-27/92; [1993] EUECJ C-27/92
Regina v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte Tara Meat Packers C-321/91; [1993] EUECJ C-321/91
25 May 1993
ECJ
European, Agriculture
[ Bailii ]
Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities; ECJ 22-Jun-1993 - C-56/91; [1993] EUECJ C-56/91
Morlins v Zuckerfabrik Konigslutter-Twulpstedt (Rec 1993,p I-6017) (Judgment) C-134/92; [1993] EUECJ C-134/92
17 Nov 1993
ECJ
Agriculture
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.
Council Regulation No 1785/81
[ Bailii ]
Etablissements Armand Mondiet SA v Armement Islais SARL C-405/92; [1993] EUECJ C-405/92; [1993] ECR I-6133
24 Nov 1993
ECJ
European, Agriculture
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.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Friedrich Schultz v Hauptzollamt Heilbronn (Rec 1993,p I-6885) (Judgment) C-120/92; [1993] EUECJ C-120/92
16 Dec 1993
ECJ
European, Agriculture
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.
[ Bailii ]
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Rec 1993,p I-7055) (Judgment) C-384/92; [1993] EUECJ C-384/92
22 Dec 1993
ECJ
European, Agriculture
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.
EC Treaty Art 189
[ Bailii ]
Hannaford v Smallacombe Times, 30 December 1993
30 Dec 1993
CA
Agriculture
Arbitration time limits run from date when arbitrator is appointed.
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
