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: 1998 To: 1998
This page lists 26 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Richards of Northumberland County Council Trading Standards Department v George Forster Stephenson [1998] EWHC Admin 75
27 Jan 1998
Admn
Agriculture, Animals
Failure to bury sheep carcasses.
Animal Health Act 1981 73(b) - Animal By-Products Order 1992
[ Bailii ]
Barrett (Inspector of Taxes) v Powell Gazette, 26 February 1998; Times, 11 February 1998
11 Feb 1998
ChD
Capital Gains Tax, Agriculture
Tenant farmer continuing business for two years after payment to land-owner on surrender of lease lost relief for business retirement.
Finance Act 1985 69
Calcott v Js Bloor (Measham) Ltd Times, 05 March 1998; Gazette, 01 April 1998; Gazette, 26 February 1998
26 Feb 1998
CA
Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant
The conversion of an agricultural tenancy for less than year, to a tenancy from year to year, operated from the original agreement date, not the end of period of the first tenancy. The application of the section to the tenancy meant that the tenancy began immediately and the terancy was determinable accordingly on the anniversary.
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 2(1)
Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd Times, 02 April 1998; [1998] ECR I-1251; [1998] EUECJ C-1/96
19 Mar 1998
ECJ
European, Commercial, Animals, Agriculture
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.
ECJ (Free movement of goods) Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty - Directive 91/629/EEC - European Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes - Recommendation concerning Cattle - Export of calves from a Member State maintaining the level of protection laid down by the Convention and the Recommendation - Export to Member States which comply with the Directive but do not observe the standards laid down in the Convention or the Recommendation and use intensive farming systems prohibited in the exporting State - Quantitative restrictions on exports - Exhaustive harmonisation - Validity of the Directive
EC Treaty 34 36 - Directive 91/629/EEC
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
United Kingdom v Commission ECLI:EU:C:1998:192; [1998] ECR I-2265; [1998] EUECJ C-180/96
5 May 1998
ECJ
European, Agriculture
Agriculture - Animal health - Emergency measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy - 'Mad cow disease'
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
United Kingdom v Commission Times, 06 May 1998; C-180/96; [1996] EUECJ C-180/96R
5 May 1998
ECJ
European, Agriculture, Health, Animals
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.
EC Treaty 185 186
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
North Devon District Council v Secretary of State for Environment, D Rottenbury B E Rottenbury Times, 12 May 1998; Gazette, 28 May 1998; [1998] EWHC Admin 458
12 May 1998
QBD
Agriculture, Planning
A mandatory agricultural occupancy condition was not subject to a continuous breach when cottages were occupied over summer by visitors rather than by agricultural workers as required by the permission.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
[ Bailii ]
Chiciak (Agriculture) C-130/97; [1998] EUECJ C-130/97
9 Jun 1998
ECJ
European, Agriculture
ECJ Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Exclusive competence of the Commission - Scope of the protection of names comprising several terms.
Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92
[ Bailii ]
Simmonds v Powell, National Trust for Places of Historic Interest and Natural Beauty [1998] EWCA Civ 1062
22 Jun 1998
CA
Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture, Arbitration
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
[ Bailii ]
Barrett; Scrope (the Trustees of SP Scott Children) and Scott v Morgan Times, 13 July 1998; Gazette, 08 July 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1118; [1999] 1 WLR 1109
30 Jun 1998
CA
Sir Richard Scott VC
Agriculture
An artificial surrender of a head lease with the sole intention of defeating a sub tenancy was not effective and the subtenant became head tenant in their stead. The collusion defeated the ruse. "It is unilateral notices to quit that destroy sub-tenancies; it is unilateral acts determining the head tenancies that destroy sub-tenancies. Consensual acts done by arrangement between landlord and tenant do not, in my opinion, do so."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Limited and others [1998] EWCA Civ 1154; [1998] EWCA Civ 1155
6 Jul 1998
CA
European, Agriculture
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another, ex parte Watson; Sharpes International Seeds Ltd and Another, Interveners Gazette, 29 July 1998; Times, 31 August 1998; [1998] EWHC Admin 737; [1998] EWCA Civ 1250
10 Jul 1998
Admn
Agriculture
On a trial of genetically modified seeds, the Secretary of State was not irrational to rely on a report, saying that the risk of cross pollination with a neighbour's organic produce was small. However the failure to carry out replicated trials, made it not a proper or effective scientific test. The trial was subject to two regulatory regimes, it failed on one, but the only power to order the destruction of a crop was for safety reasons, and no risk had been demonstrated.
Environmental Protection Act 1990 - Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (1982 No 844)
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Kyritzer Starke v Hauptzollamt Potsdam C-287/96; [1998] EUECJ C-287/96
16 Jul 1998
ECJ
Agriculture
(Judgment) Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Production refunds - System of securities - Time-limits - Primary requirement - Subordinate requirement
[ Bailii ]
Ca'Pasta v Commission [1998] EUECJ T-274/97
16 Jul 1998
ECFI
Agriculture
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.
[ Bailii ]
RJB Mining (Uk) Limited v J W Hambleton and M J Hambleton [1998] EWCA Civ 1304
27 Jul 1998
CA
Land, Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture
[ Bailii ]
Jensen v Landbrugsministeriet - Ef - Direktorat; ECJ 9-Sep-1998 - Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-132/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 14/98; [1998] EUECJ C-132/95
Booker Aquaculture Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland Times, 24 September 1998
24 Sep 1998
OHCS
Agriculture
Where a fish farmer's crop had been ordered to be destroyed for disease control, but there was no provision in the regulations for compensation for the losses, the regulation was unlawful as breach of European law.
Fish Health Regulations 1992 (1992 No 3300)
Regina v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte First City Trading and others C-263/97; [1997] Eu LR 195; [1998] EUECJ C-263/97
29 Sep 1998
ECJ
European, Agriculture
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
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Coldiretti and others v Council and Commission T-149/96; [1998] EUECJ T-149/96
30 Sep 1998
ECFI
Agriculture
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.
[ Bailii ]
United Kingdom v Commission C-209/96 [1998] EUECJ C-209/96
1 Oct 1998
ECJ
European, Agriculture
(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.
[ Bailii ]
Jokela (Agriculture); ECJ 22-Oct-1998 - C-118/97; [1998] EUECJ C-118/97
Kellinghusen v Amt fur Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel (Agriculture) C-37/97; [1998] EUECJ C-37/97
22 Oct 1998
ECJ
European, Agriculture
ECJ On the interpretation and validity, in Case C-36/97, of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12), and, in Case C-37/97, of Article 30a of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 amending Regulation No 805/68 and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 468/87 laying down general rules applying to the special premium for beef producers and Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80 introducing a system of premiums for maintaining suckler cows (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 49).
[ Bailii ]
Commission v Germany [1998] ECR I-6871; C-102/96; [1998] EUECJ C-102/96
12 Nov 1998
ECJ
G. Hirsch, P
European, Agriculture
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
Directive 64/433/EEC - Directive 91/497/EEC - Directive 89/662/EEC
[ Bailii ]
Manfredi v Regione Puglia C-308/97; [1998] EUECJ C-308/97; [1998] ECR I-7685
25 Nov 1998
ECJ
European, Agriculture
(Judgment) Wine - New planting of vines - Table grapes
[ Bailii ]
Bruner v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1998,p I-8333) (Judgment); ECJ 10-Dec-1998 - C-290/97; [1998] EUECJ C-290/97
Demand v Hauptzollamt Trier C-186/96; [1998] EUECJ C-186/96
17 Dec 1998
ECJ
European, Agriculture
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
[ Bailii ]