Loose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd and Others: CA 19 Jun 2014

The parties disputed the rights to take shellfish from the foreshore. Fishermen now appealed against a finding as to the extent of a private fishery from which they were excluded, in particular as to the rights overfomer sandbanks, at the western, seaward boundary.
Held: The Estate’s rights extended to the lowest astromical tidal mark.

Moore-Bick, Pitchford, Kitchin LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 846, [2015] Ch 547, [2015] 2 WLR 643, [2014] WLR(D) 280
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMalcolmson v O’Dea HL 1863
A private fishery may be established by prescription.
Willes J said: ‘The soil of ‘navigable tidal rivers,’ like the Shannon, so far as the tide flows and reflows, is prima facie in the Crown, and the right of fishery prima facie in the . .
CitedThe Attorney General for The Provinces British Columbia v The Attorney General for The Dominion of Canada and Another PC 2-Dec-1913
Canada – Lord Haldane set out the principles under which fishery rights might be acquired by prescription.
Fish stocks are a public resource, and there is no property in fish until they are caught. The right to fish in tidal waters or in the . .
At ChDLoose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd and Others ChD 18-Apr-2013
The court was asked whether the defendants had infringed the claimant’s fishery rights in an area of the Wash.
Held: The private fishery extended seawards as far as the mean low-water mark of spring tides and the fishermen had been fishing in . .

Cited by:
At CALynn Shellfish Ltd and Others v Loose and Another SC 13-Apr-2016
The court was asked as to the extent of an exclusive prescriptive right (ie an exclusive right obtained through a long period of use) to take cockles and mussels from a stretch of the foreshore on the east side of the Wash, on the west coast of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Agriculture

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526737

Herbaria Krauterparadies v Freistaat Bayern: ECJ 8 May 2014

ECJ Opinion – Agriculture – Labelling of organic products – Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 – Article 27(1)(f) – Use of products and substances in the processing of foodstuffs labelled as organic – Prohibition of the use of minerals and vitamins where not legally required – Addition of ferrous gluconate and vitamins to an organic fruit juice mixture – Quantities required to allow sale as a food supplement, with a nutrition or health claim or as a foodstuff for a particular nutritional use

Sharpston AG
C-137/13, [2014] EUECJ C-137/13, [2014] EUECJ C-137/13 – J
Bailii, Bailii
European

Agriculture

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525446

Antonio Munoz Y Cia S A , Superior Fruticola S A v Frumar Limited, Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited: PatC 26 Mar 1999

European legislation which controlled the naming and use of patented grape varieties did not provide for actions directly between the owner of the mark and an infringer. The purpose of the legislation was consumer protection achieved in other ways.

Times 02-Apr-1999
EC Treaty
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal toAntonio Munoz Y Cia SA Superior Fruitcola SA v Frumar Limited Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited CA 16-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to enforce European agricultural quality standards against the defendant, who was selling grapes in breach of the European Directive.
Held: The defendants were in breach, but the Directive did not give the claimants a . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromAntonio Munoz Y Cia SA Superior Fruitcola SA v Frumar Limited Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited CA 16-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to enforce European agricultural quality standards against the defendant, who was selling grapes in breach of the European Directive.
Held: The defendants were in breach, but the Directive did not give the claimants a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.136047

Associazione Nazionale Degli Industriali Delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav) v European Commission: ECJ 30 May 2013

ECJ Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Aid in the fruit and vegetable sector – Actions for annulment – Whether directly concerned – Admissibility – Processed fruit and vegetables – Operational funds and operational programmes – Funding of ‘[non-]genuine processing activities

T-454/10, [2013] EUECJ T-454/10
Bailii
European

Agriculture

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.510303

Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: ECJ 16 Jul 2009

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:
OpinionHorvath 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

Regina v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State For Health, ex Parte Fedesa and Others: ECJ 13 Nov 1990

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
Bailii
EEC Treaty 39 43, Council Directive 88/146
European
Cited by:
CitedConsorzio 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 . .
CitedBank 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 . .
CitedRotherham 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 . .
CitedAkerman-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 . .
CitedLumsdon 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.

European, Agriculture, Health

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.134975

J A Pye and Another v Graham and Another: ChD 14 Mar 2000

The fact alone of being prepared to take a licence of land would not defeat an application for adverse possession, but a request for a licence would be relevant. The adverse possession commenced from the time when the licence expired, given that a sufficient animus was then established. The reference in the section to the taking of action did not apply to an application to warn off the cautions made to the Land Registry which was not a court, and the application was not an application to recover land. Since the Grahams enjoyed factual possession of the land from January 1984, and adverse possession took effect from September 1984, the applicant company’s title was extinguished pursuant to the 1980 Act, and the Grahams were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the land. ‘[The Grahams] sought rights to graze or cut grass on the land after the summer of 1984, and were quite prepared to pay. When Pye failed to respond they did what any other farmer in their position would have done: they continued to farm the land. They were not at fault. But the result of Pye’s inaction was that they enjoyed the full use of the land without payment for 12 years. As if that were not gain enough, they are then rewarded by obtaining title to this considerable area of valuable land without any obligation to compensate the former owner in any way at all. In the case of unregistered land, and in the days before registration became the norm, such a result could no doubt be justified as avoiding protracted uncertainty where the title to land lay. But where land is registered it is difficult to see any justification for a legal rule which compels such an apparently unjust result, and even harder to see why the party gaining title should not be required to pay some compensation at least to the party losing it. It is reassuring to learn that the Land Registration Act 2002 has addressed the risk that a registered owner may lose his title through inadvertence. But the main provisions of that Act have not yet been brought into effect, and even if they had it would not assist Pye, whose title had been lost before the passing of the Act. While I am satisfied that the appeal must be allowed for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, this is a conclusion which I (like the judge [Neuberger J]…) ‘arrive at with no enthusiasm’.’
Neuberger J
Gazette 17-Feb-2000, Gazette 24-Feb-2000, Times 14-Mar-2000, [2000] Ch 676, [2000] 3 All ER 865
Limitation Act 1980 15(1) 17
England and Wales
Citing:
DistinguishedWalters v Webb 1870
. .
CitedVandeleur v Sloane 1919
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Caroline Graham and Another CA 6-Feb-2001
Where a tenant under a grazing license had stayed over after the end of the tenancy, and had been refused a renewed licence, and had continued to graze the land for over twelve years, the mere overstaying was not enough to evidence an animus . .
At first instanceJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
At first instanceJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.85085

Salvesen v Riddell and Another: SCS 15 Mar 2012

Second Division – The court allowed an appeal under section 88(1) of the 2003 Act from a decision of the Scottish Land Court. The section was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court proceeded on the basis that section 72 was enacted as an anti-avoidance measure. But on that basis that it was inappropriate because of its excessive effect and its arbitrary scope. The Lord Justice Clerk said that it was excessive because, if the landlord should fail to obtain an order of the Land Court under section 72(9), the general partner is given a 1991 Act tenancy of the holding, with all the adverse consequences to the landlord that this involves, and the landlord is also exposed to the tenant’s contingent right to buy.
Lord Justice Clerk Gill, Lord Osborne and Lord Nimmo Smith
[2012] ScotCS CSIH – 26, 2012 Hous LR 30, 2012 GWD 12-234, 2013 SC 69, 2012 SCLR 403, 2012 SLT 633
Bailii
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 88(1), European Convention on Human Rights 1
Scotland
Citing:
At Scottish Land CourtSalvesen v Riddell SLC 29-Jul-2010
SLC Agricultural holdings – limited partnership tenancy – limited partner being agent of landlord – notice of dissolution of partnership validly given – notice given on 3 Feb 2003 – expected change of legislation . .

Cited by:
At Court of SessionSalvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
At SCSSalvesen v Riddell and Another SCS 6-Jan-2015
The appellant enrolled a motion requesting payment by the Land court of the costs occasioned in a long running legal dispute. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.452231

Hungary v Commission: ECFI 1 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment (Extracts)) Common agricultural policy – Direct payments – Additional criteria for ecological focus area with short rotation coppice – Article 45(8) of the Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 – Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 – Misuse of power – Legal certainty – Non-discrimination – Legitimate expectations – Right to property – Obligation to state reasons
T-662/14, [2016] EUECJ T-662/14
Bailii
Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 46(9)(a)
European

Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.564913

Saint Louis Sucre v Directeur general des douanes et droits indirects: ECJ 16 Jun 2016

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Sugar – Production levies – Right to reimbursement – Sugar held in stock and not exported – Undue enrichment – Freedom to conduct a business – Method of calculation
C-96/15, [2016] EUECJ C-96/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:450
Bailii
European

Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.565633

Crewe Services and Investment Corporation v Silk: CA 2 Dec 1997

The landlord brought proceedings against the tenant for failure to keep his tenanted farm in a good state of repair. The judge awarded the cost of the landlord doing the repairs himself, making no discount for the possibility that the tenant might in fact remedy the breaches before the end of the tenancy. The tenant appealed.
Held: Since the tenant might decide to repair himself during the term and there was no evidence before the trial judge of the Court of Appeal that the landlord intended to carry out any works of repair at all, the costs of the repairs might be regarded as being a starting point. The court discounted these for the uncertainties as to whether the work would be done. The diminution in the value of a reversion for a tenant’s failure to repair is not represented by the undiscounted cost of repair where the tenancy’s duration is not uncertain. The court gave guidance on what the court should do in the circumstances where the evidential material as to loss is less than ideal.
Lord Woolf MR, Millett and Robert Walker LJJ
Times 02-Jan-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 2872, [1998] 35 EG 81
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBonham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel 1948
A party claiming damage for breach of a covenant to repair in a lease must prove that damage. . .

Cited by:
CitedLatimer and Another v Carney and others CA 27-Oct-2006
The landlords appealed disissal of their request for relief against their tenants for non-repair of the premises. The judge had held that the landlord had not provided appropriate evidence of the damage and costs of repair which it claimed.
CitedLatimer and Another v Carney and others CA 27-Oct-2006
The landlords appealed disissal of their request for relief against their tenants for non-repair of the premises. The judge had held that the landlord had not provided appropriate evidence of the damage and costs of repair which it claimed.
Updated: 26 April 2021; Ref: scu.79627

Wallace v C Brian Barratt and Son Limited and Lock: CA 19 Mar 1997

The court was asked whether the defendant company, which was the tenant under an agricultural tenancy agreement of land comprising arable fields, was in breach of a covenant in the tenancy not to assign, underlet, or part with or share possession or occupation of the whole or any part of the holding by virtue of farming the holding through a partnership. The individual partners were related and held most of the shares in the tenant company.
Held: There was no breach of the covenant since, among other things, the partnership activities were carried out as agent for the tenant company.
[1997] EWCA Civ 1281, [1997] EGLR 1, (1997) 74 P and CR 408, [1997] EG 40
Bailii
Agricultural Holdings (Arbitration on Notice) Order 1987
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedClear Channel United Kingdom Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 14-Oct-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that it had a tenancy for its occupation by an advertising station, and that it had protection under the 1954 Act. The defendant council said that only a licence had been granted.
Held: The grants included the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 April 2021; Ref: scu.141677

Agrana Zucker v Bundesminister fur Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft: ECJ 28 Jul 2011

ECJ (Agriculture) Sugar – Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the European Community – Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 – Article 11 – Revenue surplus in the restructuring fund – Assignment to the EAGF – Principle of conferral and principle of proportionality – Obligation to state reasons – Unjust enrichment.
C-309/10, [2011] EUECJ C-309/10
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 11
European

Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.442272

Isle of Anglesey County Council and Another v Welsh Ministers and others: QBD 6 May 2008

Challenge to the grant of planning permission to create a marina in an area designated as a mussel fishery.
Davis J
[2008] EWHC 921 (QB)
Bailii
Menai Strait Oyster and Mussel Fishery Order 1962
Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromIsle of Anglesey County Council and Another v The Welsh Ministries and others CA 20-Feb-2009
The claimants, the Commissioners and the County Council, sought declarations to establish their right to build a marina on parts of the foreshore currently used for commercial mussel fishing. Section 40 of the 1868 Act authorised ministers to make . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 March 2021; Ref: scu.267543

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 standing of the applicant to seek review of the decision. The judge acknowledged the possibility that the applicant had only his private interests at heart, but considered that he could proceed because of the significance of the decision under review. The applicant’s motive was capable of being relevant, but was not such here as to make the application an abuse.
Dyson LJ addressed the question of abuse of process in the context of Judicial Review proceedings, saying: ‘In my judgment, if a claimant has no sufficient private interest to support a claim to standing, then he should not be accorded standing merely because he raises an issue in which there is, objectively speaking, a public interest. As Sedley J said in R v Somerset County Council, Ex p Dixon [1997] JPL 1030, when considering the issue of standing, the court had to ensure that the claimant was not prompted by an ill motive, and was not a mere busybody or a trouble-maker. Thus, if a claimant seeks to challenge a decision in which he has no private law interest, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the court will accord him standing, even where there is a public interest in testing the lawfulness of the decision, if the claimant is acting out of ill-will or for some other improper purpose. It is an abuse of process to permit a claimant to bring a claim in such circumstances. If the real reason why a claimant wishes to challenge a decision in which, objectively, there is a public interest is not that he has a genuine concern about the decision, but some other reason, then that is material to the question whether he should be accorded standing.’
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Dyson
[2003] EWCA Civ 1546, Times 07-Nov-2003, Gazette 02-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1761
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMount Cook Land Ltd and Another v Westminster City Council CA 14-Oct-2003
The applicants had sought judicial review of the defendant’s grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the former CandA building in Oxford Street. Though the application for leave to apply had been successful, and a full hearing took . .
Appeal fromFeakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 20-Dec-2002
. .
See AlsoDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .

Cited by:
See AlsoDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .
CitedLand Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) CA 18-Dec-2009
The claimants wanted planning permission to redevelop land. The defendant firm of solicitors, their tenants, had challenged the planning permission. The claimants alleged that that opposition was a tortious abuse because its true purpose was to . .
Now set asideFeakins 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 . .
CitedGood Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .
See AlsoDepartment for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
. .
See AlsoFeakins 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 March 2021; Ref: scu.187505

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another: ChD 26 Nov 2004

[2004] EWHC 2735 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoRegina 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 . .

Cited by:
See AlsoDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 March 2021; Ref: scu.226178

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another: ChD 26 Nov 2004

The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors.
Held: The department did not have power under the Act to bury slaughtered animals on land which was not occupied by their owner, and the counterclaim succeeded. However the defendant had displayed a readiness to dissemble in order to get his bank which had taken possession of the farm to resell it to the lady who was soon to be his wife without disclosing his relationship. The legislation was operative against someone who took part in a transaction at an undervalue. Mr Feakins knew that she would immediately resell the land for twice the amount once purchased when he, by arrangement, had already agreed to surrender his agricultural tenancy. Accordingly the transaction could be set aside.
Hart J
Times 29-Dec-2004
Insolvency Act 1985 423, Animal Health Act 1981 34
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoRegina 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 . .
CitedRe Brabon 2001
The debtor had contracted to sell his land to a third party developer, Silver. Between contract and completion, the debtor was made bankrupt. His wife, who already held legal charges over part of the land, took a transfer of a charge over the . .
See AlsoDepartment for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoRegina 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 . .
Appeal fromFeakins 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 March 2021; Ref: scu.220647

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 farmers’ appeal as to the farm transaction failed: ‘beyond argument that DEFRA was a ‘victim’ of the ‘transaction’ in the instant case. The fact that the sale by NatWest, looked at in isolation, caused no loss is not to the point. The point is that the ‘transaction’ was not the sale by NatWest, but the arrangement between KF and Miss Hawkins to use that sale as a necessary step in the process of transferring the intended benefit to Miss Hawkins. ‘ The transaction was to be set aside. As to the counterclaim in which damages were sought for trespass in the steps taken to dispose of carcasses of animal slaughtered for foot and mouth. There was no express statutory power to take the steps undertaken, in particular to bury the carcasses. The result was a permanent interference with the land: ‘authority to interfere permanently with private property rights is to be limited to the circumstances identified in section 34(4) and not to be extended to the more general power of disposal conferred by section 34(2). ‘ The European Groundwater Directive could not be used to justify such action, since there was no sufficient breach of the Directive. The Departments appeal on the counterclaims failed.
Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Mr Justice Moses
[2005] EWCA Civ 1513, Times 22-Dec-2005
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 423, Animal Health Act 1981, Diseases of Animals (Seizure Order) 1993 (1993 No 1685, Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order 1983
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .
CitedRe Brabon 2001
The debtor had contracted to sell his land to a third party developer, Silver. Between contract and completion, the debtor was made bankrupt. His wife, who already held legal charges over part of the land, took a transfer of a charge over the . .
CitedNational Westminster Bank plc v Jones and Others CA 24-Oct-2001
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 . .
CitedIn re M C Bacon Ltd ChD 1990
A liquidator claimed that the costs of an unsuccessful attempt to set a floating charge aside should be paid out of the assets subject to the charge in priority to the claims of the charge holder.
Held: The rule was a complete statement of the . .
CitedIan Peter Phillips (Liquidator of A J Bekhor and Co); A J Bekhor and Co (In Administrative Receivership and In Liquidation) v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Limited (Formerly Brewin Dolphin and Company Limited) and Private Capital Group Limited CA 17-Mar-1999
When considering whether a breach went to the root of a contract, an associated contract could be split off, even though it would not be split off for insolvency purposes when asking whether a transaction was at an undervalue. . .
CitedAgricultural Mortgage Corporation Plc v Woodward and Another CA 30-May-1994
A tenancy granted by an insolvent farmer to his wife was set aside because of additional benefits which were granted. The tenancy was held to have been granted at an undervalue, even though the court was unable precisely to measure the value of the . .
CitedChohan v Saggar and Another CA 27-Dec-1993
The word ‘and’ in sections 423(2)(a) and 423(2)(b) is to be read conjunctively not disjunctively. Section 238(3) is to be interpreted as requiring restoration of the former position ‘as far as possible’ or ‘as far as practicable’, and that . .
CitedPhillips (Liquidator of A J Bekhor and Co ) and Another v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie HL 18-Jan-2001
The company sold its business to the respondent for one pound, but the respondent agreed to sublease computer equipment for an amount equivalent to the value of the company. The company defaulted, and the computer equipment was recovered. The . .
CitedRegina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, ex parte McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd HL 14-Nov-1991
A Local Authority was not able to impose charge for inquiries as to speculative developments and similar proposals, or for consultations, and pre-planning advice. There was no statutory authority for such a charge, and it was therefore unlawful and . .
CitedDixon and Another, Regina (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs QBD 10-Apr-2002
The applicants were farmers. Their cattle were destroyed after contracting foot and mouth disease. Their land was used for the burning of the carcasses of their animals, and of animals from neighbouring farms. They were compensated inter alia for . .
CitedColonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Melbourne Harbour Trust Commissioners PC 18-Jan-1927
An Act removing the right of appeal to the Privy Council was held not to affect an appeal in litigation pending when the Act was passed and decided after its passing, on the ground that (Lord Warrington) ‘[t]o deprive a suitor in pending litigation . .
CitedMinister of Housing and Local Government v Hartnell HL 1965
The law ordinarily entitles a person whose land is taken for a highway to compensation unless the statutory intention to resume without compensation is expressed in clear and unambiguous terms. Lord Wilberforce described a use treated as established . .
CitedAllen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd HL 29-Jan-1980
An express statutory authority to construct an oil refinery carried with it the authority to refine. It was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘It is now well settled . .
CitedFranz Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein. (Measures Adopted By An Institution ) ECJ 6-Oct-1970
Europa It would be incompatible with the binding effect attributed to decisions by article 189 to exclude in principle the possibility that persons affected may invoke the obligation imposed by a decision. . .
CitedBrasserie du Pecheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (4) ECJ 5-Mar-1996
Member states may be liable to individuals for their failure to implement EU laws. The right of individuals to rely on directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty before national courts is not sufficient in itself to ensure full and complete . .
CitedWebb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 1) HL 3-Mar-1993
Questions on pregnancy dismissals included unavailability at required time. The correct comparison under the Act of 1975 was between the pregnant woman and: ‘a hypothetical man who would also be unavailable at the critical time. The relevant . .
CitedMarleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
CitedBurton v British Railways Board ECJ 16-Feb-1982
Europa The principle of equal treatment contained in article 5 of council directive 76/207 applies to the conditions of access to voluntary redundancy benefit paid by an employer to a worker wishing to leave his . .
CitedShelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company, Meux’s Brewery Co v Same CA 1895
The plaintiff sought damages and an injunction for nuisance by noise and vibration which was causing structural injury to a public house.
Held: The court set out the rules for when a court should not grant an injunction for an infringement of . .
CitedJaggard v Sawyer and Another CA 18-Jul-1994
The plaintiff appealed against the award of damages instead of an injunction aftter the County court had found the defendant to have trespassed on his land by a new building making use of a private right of way.
Held: The appeal failed.
CitedWrotham Park Estate Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd ChD 1974
55 houses had been built by the defendant, knowingly in breach of a restrictive covenant, imposed for the benefit of an estate, and in the face of objections by the claimant.
Held: The restrictive covenant not to develop other than in . .
CitedSurrey County Council v Bredero Homes Ltd CA 7-Apr-1993
A local authority had sold surplus land to a developer and obtained a covenant that the developer would develop the land in accordance with an existing planning permission. The sole purpose of the local authority in imposing the covenant was to . .
CriticisedAnchor Brewhouse Developments -v Berkley House (Docklands) Developments 1987
A crane which passes its boom over private land without permission creates an actionable nuisance. Damages could not be awarded so as to remove the plaintiff’s right to bring actions for trespass in the future if the trespass continued: ‘I find some . .
CitedHarrow London Borough Council v Donohue CA 1995
The plaintiff complained at the defendant’s garage, half of which had been built on the plaintiff’s land. The judge had awarded damages in lieu of a mandatory injunction for its removal. The Council appealed.
Held: Where a landowner had been . .
See AlsoFeakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1658) CA 9-Dec-2005
. .
See AlsoRegina 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 . .

Cited by:
See AlsoFeakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1658) CA 9-Dec-2005
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 March 2021; Ref: scu.235918

Kellinghusen v Amt fur Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel (Agriculture): ECJ 22 Oct 1998

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).
C-37/97, [1998] EUECJ C-37/97
Bailii
European

Updated: 07 March 2021; Ref: scu.433452

Greece v Commission: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Common Market Organization for sugar – Article 8, paragraph 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 and Article 11, paragraphs 1 and 2, the Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 – Risk of financial loss to the Fund – Principle of proportionality.
T-184/09, [2011] EUECJ T-184/09
Bailii

Updated: 06 March 2021; Ref: scu.431354

Bureau DIntervention and De Restitution Belge: ECJ 17 Mar 2011

ECJ Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Sugar – The nature and scope of the transitional quotas allotted to a sugar manufacturer – Possibility of a company benefiting from restructuring aid for the 2006/2007 marketing year to make use of transitional quota assigned to it – Calculating the amount of recovery and the penalty for non-compliance under the restructuring plan.
C-150/10, [2011] EUECJ C-150/10
Bailii
European

Updated: 06 March 2021; Ref: scu.430703

Germany v Commission (Agriculture): ECFI 26 Oct 2010

ECFI EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Clearance of accounts – 2006 Financial year – Date of application of the first subparagraph of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 – Binding force of a unilateral declaration by the Commission annexed to the minutes of a Coreper meeting.
T-236/07, [2010] EUECJ T-236/07
Bailii
European

Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.425763

Uzonyi (Agriculture): ECJ 30 Sep 2010

ECJ Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Support schemes – Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 – Article 143ba – Separate sugar payment – Grant – Decision of the new Member States – Conditions – Objective and non-discriminatory criteria.
C-133/09, [2010] EUECJ C-133/09
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003
European

Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.425273

Dorset County Council v House: CACD 13 Oct 2010

The defendant appealed against his convictions after selling cattle without eartags and failing to give proper notifications of cattle movements.
Toulson LJ, Maddison, Hickinbottom JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 2270
Bailii
Cattle Identification Regulations 1998 (1998 SI No 871), Cattle Database Regulations 1998 (1998 SI No 1796) 5(1), Trade Descriptions Act 1968 1(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.425198

Italy v Commission: ECFI 22 Apr 2010

ECJ EAGF Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGF Sums recoverable from the Italian Republic where there is non-recovery within the time-limits specified Meaning of financial consequences Receipt of interest Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005
T-275/08, [2010] EUECJ T-275/08
Bailii
European

Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.408761

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 administrations are to have legislative competence, the mere adoption by those administrations of different … standards … does not constitute discrimination contrary to Community law’
C-428/07, [2009] EUECJ C-428/07
Bailii
European
Cited by:
OpinionHorvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ECJ 16-Jul-2009
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 . .
CitedA and B, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health SC 14-Jun-2017
The court was asked: ‘Was it unlawful for the Secretary of State for Health, the respondent, who had power to make provisions for the functioning of the National Health Service in England, to have failed to make a provision which would have enabled . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 February 2021; Ref: scu.286160

Agrana Zucker Gmbh v Bundesminister fur Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft: ECJ 21 Jan 2010

ECJ Common agricultural policy Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 Article 16 Production charge Article 19 Withdrawal of sugar from the market Regulation (EC) No 290/2007 Regionally differentiated determination of the withdrawal percentage Principle of proportionality Principle of non-discrimination.
C-365/08, [2010] EUECJ C-365/08 – O, [2010] EUECJ C-365/08
Bailii, Bailii
European

Updated: 22 February 2021; Ref: scu.396391

Denka International v Commission (Environment And Consumers): ECFI 19 Nov 2009

ECJ Plant-protection products Active substance dichlorvos Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC Evaluation procedure Opinion of an EFSA Scientific Panel Plea of illegality Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 Submission of new studies and data during the evaluation procedure Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 Article 28(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Legitimate expectations Proportionality Equal treatment Principle of sound administration Rights of the defence Principle of subsidiarity Article 95(3) EC and Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of Directive 91/414.
T-334/07, [2009] EUECJ T-334/07
Bailii
European

Updated: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.384082

Bowland Dairy Products v Commission (Environment And Consumers): ECFI 29 Oct 2009

ECJ Action for damages Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 – Rapid alert system Supplementary notification – Competence of the national authorities Commission’s opinion not binding Modification of the subject-matter of the dispute Inadmissibility.
T-212/06, [2009] EUECJ T-212/06
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002
European

Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.380276

Estonia v Commission T-324/05: ECFI 2 Oct 2009

ECJ Agriculture Common organization of the markets Transitional measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector Action for annulment Collegiality Concept of ‘stock’ Circumstances in stocks have formed Motivation Good administration Good faith Non-discrimination Ownership Proportionality
[2009] EUECJ T-324/05
Bailii
European

Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.375631

Poland v Commission T-257/04: ECFI 10 Jun 2009

ECJ Agriculture Common organisation of the markets Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 laying down measures in respect of trade in agricultural products Action for annulment Period within which proceedings must be commenced Point from which time starts to run Delay Amendment of a provision of a regulation Re-opening of the action against that provision and against all provisions forming a body of rules with it Partial admissibility Proportionality Principle of non-discrimination Legitimate expectations Statement of reasons.
[2009] EUECJ T-257/04
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 February 2021; Ref: scu.347049

Azienda Agricola Disaro Antonio and Others v Cooperativa Milka 2000 Soc coop. Ar: ECJ 3 Mar 2009

ECJ Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulation No 1788/2003 – Validity – Article 33(1) EC Objectives of the common agricultural policy Second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC Principle of equality Third paragraph of Article 5 EC Principle of proportionality Determination of national reference quantities Consideration of the relationship between milk production and demand for milk in a Member State.
C-34/08, [2009] EUECJ C-34/08 – O
Bailii
Regulation No 1788/2003
European

Updated: 13 February 2021; Ref: scu.317889

Compania Espanola De Comercializacion De Aceite: ECJ 12 Feb 2009

ECJ (Agriculture) Common organisation of the market in oils and fats Olive oil Article 12a of Regulation No 133/66/EEC Private storage Authorised bodies Recognised producer groups and associations thereof Joint venture seeking to maintain specific minimum price level Applicability of competition rules to agriculture Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 26.
C-505/07, [2009] EUECJ C-505/07 – O
Bailii
European
Cited by:
OpinionCompania Espanola De Comercializacion De Aceite ECJ 1-Oct-2009
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling Common organisation of the market in oils and fats Regulation No 136/66/EEC Article 12a Storage of olive oil without Community financing Powers of national competition . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 February 2021; Ref: scu.286157

Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei und Trockenwerk v Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung, intervening party: Fonterra (Logistics) Ltd: ECJ 11 Jul 2006

ECJ Milk and milk products – Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 – New Zealand butter – Import licence procedures – Inward Monitoring Arrangement (IMA 1) certificate.
C-313/04, [2006] EUECJ C-313/04
Bailii
European
Cited by:
CitedRotherham 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 February 2021; Ref: scu.243088

Glencore Grain Rotterdam: ECJ 4 Dec 2008

Europa Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 Export refunds on agricultural products Article 16 Differentiated refund Proof that customs formalities for importation have been completed Production of a copy or photocopy of the transport documents Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 Granting of export refunds on cereals Article 13 Derogation from Article 16 of Regulation No 800/1999.
C-391/07, [2008] EUECJ C-391/07
Bailii
European

Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.278685

AOB Reuter v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas: ECJ 24 Apr 2008

ECJ Agriculture – Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 Article 11 – System of export refunds on agricultural products Condition for the grant of the refund Refund paid to the exporter after submission of documents forged by its contracting partner Goods not exported Conditions for the application of sanctions.
C-143/07, [2008] EUECJ C-143/07
Bailii
Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87
European

Updated: 07 February 2021; Ref: scu.267099

Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel – Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen: ECJ 28 Feb 2008

ECJ Opinion – Export refunds – Protection of bovine animals during transport – Rest periods – Route plan
C-207/06, [2008] EUECJ C-207/06 – O
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 615/98, Directive 91/628/EEC
European
Cited by:
OpinionSchwaninger Martin, Viehhandel – Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen ECJ 17-Jul-2008
ECJ Regulation (EC) No 615/98 – Export refunds – Welfare of live bovine animals during transport – Directive 91/628/EEC – Applicability of the rules relating to the protection of animals during transport – Rules . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2021; Ref: scu.266099

Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 22 Mar 2007

The defendant appealed against his conviction under the Act, saying that the proceedings had been issued late. The issue was the calculation of the date when proceedings were begun.
Held: There was no justification for reading the wording of the two Acts differently despite the extended time limit allowed by the 1967 Act. The time limit expired over a weekend, but the complaint was received by fax. An information was laid by fax at the point where it could have been read: ‘the essential concept running through all these authorities is that the information should be made available to the justices, or the clerk to the justice, within time. This will be so in relation to postal delivery when it can properly be inferred that it has been received, whether opened or not; and as far as transmissions by fax or other electronic means are concerned, that will be when it can properly be inferred that the information is retrievable, whether retrieved in fact or not. ‘ On that basis the appeal was denied.
Latham LJ, Davis J
Times 11-May-2007, [2007] EWHC 614 (Admin)
Bailii
Forestry Act 1967 17(1), Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRex v Willace 1797
The commencement of a prosecution was held to be ‘the information and proceeding before the magistrate’. . .
CitedPrice v Humphries 1958
The court was asked whether or not the prosecution had proved that the relevant proceedings had been ‘instituted’ by or with the consent of the minister or other authorised agent as required by section 53(1) of the National Insurance Act 1946.
CitedRegina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Hill and others HL 1993
The complaint had been laid before Magistrates before the expiration of the time limit, but was only considered and the summons issued after the time limit. The House also considered the power of delegation where a justice of the peace or the clerk . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Cottier QBD 22-Feb-1996
Proceedings against a youth begin at court; notice need not be given to the youth panel before the charge itself is made at police station. When considering whether proceedings have been ‘begun’ in any court for the section Saville LJ, said: ‘We . .
MentionedLloyd v Young Admn 1963
There had been doubt on the face of the summons as to the date of the laying of the information.
Held: The court concluded on the evidence that the Justices were entitled to dismiss the information because of the doubts of the date. . .
CitedRegina v Pontypridd Juvenile Court ex parte B and others Admn 1988
The court was asked about compliance with the time limits in the 1980 Act. There was a computer link between the police station and the magistrates’ court. The practice for laying an information was for the police to feed the information into the . .
CitedAtkinson v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-May-2004
The court considered how to apply the time limits in the section. There was a system for automatic electronic communication between the police and the court office. The six month time limit expired on the 16th December. The documents served on the . .

Cited by:
See AlsoRockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 9-May-2008
The defendant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for having felled more than five cubic metres of wood without a licence. He argued that the summons had been issued out of time.
Held: The request to state a case failed. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.250593

Roquette Freres v Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Peche et de la Ruralite: ECJ 26 Oct 2006

ECJ Entitlement of individuals to rely on the unlawfulness of Community regulations before national courts – Good reason to doubt the admissibility of actions brought by individuals for the annulment of such regulations (Article 230(4) EC) – Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector – Isoglucose production quotas – Treatment of isoglucose merely arising as an intermediate product in the manufacture of other products intended for sale
Kokott AG
C-441/05, [2006] EUECJ C-441/05 – O
Bailii
Cited by:
OpinionRoquette Freres v Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Peche et de la Ruralite ECJ 8-Mar-2007
ECJ Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector Isoglucose Determination of the basic quantities used for the allocation of production quotas Isoglucose produced as an intermediate product Article . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 January 2021; Ref: scu.246019

NV Raverco (C-129/05), Coxon and Chatterton Ltd (C-130/05) v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit: ECJ 28 Sep 2006

ECJ Directive 97/78/EC – Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 – Veterinary checks – Products entering the Community from third countries – Redispatch of products that do not satisfy the import conditions – Seizure and destruction.
C-130/05, [2006] EUECJ C-130/05
Bailii
Directive 97/78/EC

Updated: 31 January 2021; Ref: scu.245151

Belgium v Commission (Agriculture) French Text: ECFI 25 Jul 2006

ECJ EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Arable crops – Check on areas based on an aerial orthoimagery system (GIS) – Difference between the area declared and the area resulting from the GIS system – Administrative check and inspection on site – Loss to EAGGF
T-221/04, [2006] EUECJ T-221/04
Bailii

Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.243411

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 validity of the crucial paragraphs of the England Regulations. My preliminary view is that the addition of the words ‘and environmental’ were intended to widen the scope of the minimum requirements. The reference in Annex IV to ‘habitats’ is significant. It appears to me that visible rights of way can properly be described as ‘landscape features’. ‘ The question was to be referred to the European Court of Justice.
Crane J
[2006] EWHC 1833 (Admin)
Bailii
Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Cross Compliance) (England) Regulations 2004, Rights of Way Act 1980
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v International Stock Exchange, ex parte Else (1982) Ltd CA 1993
The court gave guidance on the circumstances under which questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. . .
CitedGomez de la Cruz Talegon v Commission ECFI 9-Feb-2000
Europa Officials – Request for reclassification in grade – Objection of inadmissibility – Material new fact – Admissibility. . .
CitedEuropean Parliament v Council of the European Union 162111 ECJ 25-Feb-1999
ECJ Regulations on the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution and fire – Legal basis – Article 43 of the EC Treaty – Article 130s of the EC Treaty – Parliament’s prerogatives.
CitedEtablissements Armand Mondiet SA v Armement Islais SARL ECJ 24-Nov-1993
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.243368

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 incorrect information to the court in a witness statement. The judgment should be set aside.
Mr Justice Moses Lord Justice Dyson Lady Justice Smith
[2006] EWCA Civ 699
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoFeakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 20-Dec-2002
. .
Now set asideRegina 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 AlsoDepartment of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another CA 6-Apr-2006
. .

Cited by:
CitedBancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.242360

Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1658): CA 9 Dec 2005

Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Mr Justice Moses
[2005] EWCA Civ 1658
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoFeakins 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 . .

Cited by:
See AlsoFeakins 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.238637

Bloomsbury International Ltd and Others v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Another: QBD 24 Jul 2009

Parties challenged the legality of a levy imposed by the defendant for the purposes of supporting the sea food industry. They said that a levy imposed on fish products imported to the UK was beyond the powers given by the 1981 Act, and was contrary to EU law.
Held: The challenge was dismissed as to both arguments.
Hamblen J
[2009] EWHC 1721 (QB), [2010] 1 CMLR 12
Bailii
Fisheries Act 1981, Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy) Regulations 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromBloomsbury International Ltd and Others v The Sea Fish Industry Authority and Another CA 18-Mar-2010
The company, importers of fish, challenged the lawfulness of Regulations which imposed a levy requiring them to contribute to the training of UK fishermen.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded. . .
At first instanceBloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 January 2021; Ref: scu.361473

ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food Standards Agency; Fratelli Martini and Cargill v Similar etc: ECJ 6 Dec 2005

Europa (Agriculture) Animal health and public health requirements – Composite feedingstuffs for animals – Indication of the exact percentage of the components of a product – Infringement of the principle of proportionality.
C-12/04, [2005] EUECJ C-12/04
Bailii
European

Updated: 26 January 2021; Ref: scu.235852

ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food Standards Agency; Fratelli Martini and C. SpA Cargill Srl v Similar: ECJ 6 Dec 2005

Europa Animal health and public health requirements – Composite feedingstuffs for animals – Indication of the exact percentage of the components of a product – Infringement of the principle of proportionality.
C-11/04, [2005] EUECJ C-11/04
Bailii
European

Updated: 26 January 2021; Ref: scu.235851

Regina, ex parte ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food Standards Agency: ECJ 6 Dec 2005

Europa (Agriculture) Animal health and public health requirements -? Composite feedingstuffs for animals -? Indication of the exact percentage of the components of a product -? Infringement of the principle of proportionality.
C-453/03, [2005] EUECJ C-453/03
Bailii
European

Updated: 26 January 2021; Ref: scu.235842

Kuipers v Productschap Zuivel: ECJ 26 May 2005

ECJ Common organization of the markets – Milk and milk products – Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 – National scheme under which dairies withhold deductions from the price payable to dairy farmers or pay price supplements to them according to the quality of the milk supplied – Incompatibility
C-283/03, [2005] EUECJ C-283/03, [2005] ECR I-4255
Bailii

Updated: 23 January 2021; Ref: scu.225315

Knoeckel, Schmidt and Cie, Papierfabriken Ag v Hauptzollamt Landau/Pfalz.: ECJ 14 Feb 1989

Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Cereals – Rice – Production refunds for the use of starch – Conditions for granting such refunds – Use of products derived solely from specified raw materials – Starch obtained partly from other products – Disallowed – Whether legal
Article 6 of Council Regulation No 1009/86 establishing general rules applying to production refunds in the cereals and rice sector empowers the Commission to lay down detailed rules for the application thereof.
In determining the extent of the powers thus conferred by the Council on the Commission, the reference to ‘implementation’ in Article 155 of the Treaty must be interpreted widely ( see judgment of 30 October 1975 in Case 23/75 Rey Soda (( 1975 )) ECR 1279 ); the Commission is authorized to adopt all the measures which are necessary or appropriate for the implementation of the basic legislation, provided that they are not contrary to such legislation or to the implementing legislation adopted by the Council ( see judgment of 15 May 1984 in Case 121/83 Zuckerfabrik Franken (( 1984 )) ECR 2039 ).
Article 4(3 ) of Commission Regulation No 2169/86 laying down detailed rules for the control and payment of the production refunds in the cereals and rice sectors can validly, in the light of Council Regulation No 1009/86 establishing general rules applying to those production refunds, make the grant of such refunds conditional on a declaration by the manufacturer that the starch to be used has not been produced from a raw material other than maize, wheat, rice or potatoes.
In view of the divergences between the Community provisions governing refunds in the various sectors covered by common organizations of the market, and since it is impossible for national authorities using the normal methods of inspection to determine the ratio between the basic products used in the manufacture of certain goods obtained partly from cereal or rice starch and partly from sugar-based products, there was a serious risk, which the Commission could legitimately decide to eliminate, that producers might attempt to obtain refunds without due entitlement .
R-13/88, [1989] EUECJ R-13/88
Bailii
Council Regulation No 1009/86; Commission Regulation No 2169/86 4(3)
European

Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.215669

Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle Des Legumes De Conserve (Unilec) v Etablissements Larroche Freres: ECJ 22 Sep 1988

ECJ 1. The rules of the common organization of the market set up by Regulation No 1035/72 must be applied to fruit and vegetables coming within the scope of that organization, irrespective of the use to which they are ultimately to be put . The fact that they are intended for processing does not mean that at the marketing stage they fall within the ambit of Regulation No 516/77 on the common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables.
2. Regulation No 1035/72 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables, in the version applicable prior to the entry into force of Regulation No 3284/83, must be interpreted as leaving the Member States no power to extend to national producers and processors who are not affiliated to an intertrade organization in the sector the rules adopted by that organization under agreements fixing minimum purchase prices for certain vegetables.
3. The obligation imposed on non-affiliated producers to contribute to the financing of funds established by a producers’ organization in the fruit and vegetables sector is unlawful in so far as it serves to finance activities which are themselves held to be contrary to Community law.
R-212/87, [1988] EUECJ R-212/87
Bailii

Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.215648

Lippische Hauptgenossenschaft Eg Et Westfalische Central-Genossenschaft Eg v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung: ECJ 12 Jun 1980

ECJ 1. According to the general conception underlying the common organization of agricultural markets the granting of denaturing premiums provided for in regulations nos 956/68, 2086/68 and 1403/69 on the denaturing of common wheat is subject to a set of common rules which are applicable uniformly throughout the community. However, management of that intervention mechanism is the task of the national intervention agencies, which are required to perform all the supervisory duties necessary in order to ensure that denaturing premiums are granted only in accordance with the conditions laid down by the community rules and that any infringement of the rules of community law by those operating on the market is appropriately penalized.
2. The question within what period a national intervention agency may claim from recipients repayment of premiums wrongly paid in respect of the denaturing of common wheat must, at the present stage in the development of community law, be decided in accordance with the national law of the intervention agency responsible for the relevant sector of the market.
Community law does not prevent the application of provisions or principles of national law the effect of which may be to restrict the period during which such repayment may be claimed, provided always that that question is settled in accordance with the same rules as those which apply to the performance of similar supervisory duties carried out by the national administrative authorities in the spheres in which they have sole responsibility.
R-119/79, [1980] EUECJ R-119/79
Bailii
European

Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.214927

Amministrazione Delle Finanze v Srl Meridionale Industria Salumi, Fratelli Vasanelli And Fratelli Ultrocchi: ECJ 27 Mar 1980

Proceedings were taken to require Mr Salumi and others to pay additional sums as levies on imports of agricultural products, on the basis that the earlier lower levy had been applied in error. Subsequently an EU regulation was enacted and the European Court interpreted the Italian court’s question as asking in substance whether that regulation applied to payments of duties made before the date the regulation came into force. HELD: ‘Although procedural rules are generally held to apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, this is not the case with substantive rules. On the contrary, the latter are usually interpreted as applying to situations existing before the entry into force only insofar as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such an effect must be given to them.
This interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectation, by virtue of which the effect of Community legislation must be clear and predictable for those who are subject to it. The Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of those principles . . that in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from the point in time before its publication and that it may be otherwise only exceptionally, where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected.’
The regulation in question contained both procedural and substantive rules which formed an indivisible whole. The individual provisions should not be considered in isolation with regard to the time at which they take effect. The regulation could not therefore be accorded retroactive effect unless sufficiently clear indications led to such a conclusion. Both the wording and the general scheme of the regulation led to the conclusion that the regulation provided only for the future.
R-128/79, [1980] EUECJ R-128/79
Bailii
European
Cited by:
CitedEmerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.214891

Attorney General v Burgoa: ECJ 14 Oct 1980

R-812/79, [1980] EUECJ R-812/79, [1980] ECR 2787
Bailii
European
Cited by:
CitedBritish American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Kazemier Bv SC 28-Oct-2015
One container loaded with cigarettes was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.214939

British Beef Company Limited v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce: ECJ 13 Jun 1978

ECJ 1. The actual right to receive a monetary compensatory amount and the charge resulting from the levying of such an amount are only created by the performance of the import or export transaction as the case may be and only from the moment when that transaction takes place. It follows that in the absence of an express provision to the contrary the amounts to be paid or levied are those fixed by the rules in force at the moment of the import or export whatever may be the date on which the contract relating to the transaction in question was concluded.
2. Having regard to the recitals to and the provisions of regulation no 2405/76 and to the special circumstances existing at the time of its adoption it could not arouse in the minds of persons concerned a legitimate expectation, which the commission was required to protect, of its maintenance for the whole of the week in question.
R-146/77, [1978] EUECJ R-146/77
Bailii

Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.214744

Riccardo Tasca: ECJ 26 Feb 1976

ECJ 1. Agriculture – common organization of the market – sugar – sale – maximum prices – unilateral fixing by a member state – prohibition (regulation no 1009/67 of the council)
2. Quantitative restrictions – measures having equivalent effect – concept (EEC treaty, article 30)
3. Agriculture – common organization of the market – sugar – sale – maximum prices – unilateral fixing by a member state – quantitative restrictions – measure having equivalent effect (regulation no 1009/67 of the council, article 35)
4. Measures adopted by an institution – regulation – immediate effects -individual rights – protection (EEC treaty, article 189)
C-65-75, [1976] EUECJ R-65/75
Bailii
European

Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.214468