Tag: Agriculture

Robb’s Trust, The Governors of, Against Edwards: SCS 26 May 2015

Extra Division, Inner House. The House was asked whether, in respect of a lease governed by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, in terms of which the landlords have served on the tenant a notice to quit which is disputed by the tenant, and the dispute proceeds to arbitration, section 23(4) of the Act has the effect that the lease continues and rent remains due and payable until the date of issue of the arbiter’s award.

Judges:

Lord Menzies

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 39

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547650

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.

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Millett and Robert Walker LJJ

Citations:

Times 02-Jan-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 2872, [1998] 35 EG 81

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bonham-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:

Cited – Latimer 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.
Cited – Latimer 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant, Damages

Updated: 11 November 2022; 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.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1281, [1997] EGLR 1, (1997) 74 P and CR 408, [1997] EG 40

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Arbitration on Notice) Order 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Clear 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture, Arbitration

Updated: 06 November 2022; 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.

Citations:

C-309/10, [2011] EUECJ C-309/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 11

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 17 September 2022; 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.

Judges:

Davis J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 921 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Menai Strait Oyster and Mussel Fishery Order 1962

Jurisdiction:

Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Isle 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Planning

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.267543

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.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Mr Justice Moses

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1513, Times 22-Dec-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 423, Animal Health Act 1981, Diseases of Animals (Seizure Order) 1993 (1993 No 1685, Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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. . .
Cited – Re 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 . .
Cited – National 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 . .
Cited – In 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 . .
Cited – Phillips (Liquidator of A J Bekhor and Co) and Another v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Limited and Another 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. . .
Cited – Agricultural 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 . .
Cited – Chohan 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 . .
Cited – Phillips (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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Dixon 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 . .
Cited – Colonial 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 . .
Cited – Minister 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 . .
Cited – Allen 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 . .
Cited – Franz 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. . .
Cited – Brasserie 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 . .
Cited – Webb 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 . .
Cited – Marleasing 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 . .
Cited – Burton 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 . .
Cited – Shelfer 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 . .
Cited – Jaggard v Sawyer and Another CA 18-Jul-1994
Recovery of damages after Refusal of Injunction
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.
Cited – Wrotham 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 . .
Cited – Surrey 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 . .
Criticised – Anchor 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 . .
Cited – Harrow 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 Also – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1658) CA 9-Dec-2005
. .
See Also – 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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1658) CA 9-Dec-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Agriculture

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.235918

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.

Judges:

Hart J

Citations:

Times 29-Dec-2004

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1985 423, Animal Health Act 1981 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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 . .
Cited – Re 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 Also – Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
. .

Cited by:

See Also – 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 . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other, Agriculture

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.220647

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

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2735 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.226178

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.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1546, Times 07-Nov-2003, Gazette 02-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1761

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mount 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 from – Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 20-Dec-2002
. .
See Also – 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. . .

Cited by:

See Also – 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. . .
Cited – Land 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 aside – 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 . .
Cited – Good 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 Also – Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
. .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Environment, Judicial Review

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.187505

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).

Citations:

C-37/97, [1998] EUECJ C-37/97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433452

K and A Jackson and Son, Regina (on The Application of) v Department for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 14 Apr 2011

The clamants sought judicial review of the order made by the defendant for the slaughter of their pedigree bull found positive in a test for bovine tuberculosis.

Judges:

McCombe J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 956 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Agriculture, Animals

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.432850

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.

Citations:

T-184/09, [2011] EUECJ T-184/09

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 04 September 2022; 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.

Citations:

C-150/10, [2011] EUECJ C-150/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 04 September 2022; 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.

Citations:

T-236/07, [2010] EUECJ T-236/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 25 August 2022; 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.

Citations:

C-133/09, [2010] EUECJ C-133/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 25 August 2022; 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.

Judges:

Toulson LJ, Maddison, Hickinbottom JJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 2270

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Cattle Identification Regulations 1998 (1998 SI No 871), Cattle Database Regulations 1998 (1998 SI No 1796) 5(1), Trade Descriptions Act 1968 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Agriculture

Updated: 25 August 2022; 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

Citations:

T-275/08, [2010] EUECJ T-275/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408761

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.

Citations:

C-365/08, [2010] EUECJ C-365/08 – O, [2010] EUECJ C-365/08

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396391

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’

Citations:

C-428/07, [2009] EUECJ C-428/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – 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 . .
Cited – A 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.286160

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.

Citations:

T-334/07, [2009] EUECJ T-334/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 11 August 2022; 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.

Citations:

T-212/06, [2009] EUECJ T-212/06

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture, Consumer

Updated: 05 August 2022; 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

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ T-324/05

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 04 August 2022; 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.

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ T-257/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Agriculture

Updated: 28 July 2022; 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.

Citations:

C-34/08, [2009] EUECJ C-34/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation No 1788/2003

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 23 July 2022; 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.

Citations:

C-505/07, [2009] EUECJ C-505/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Compania 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture

Updated: 23 July 2022; 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.

Citations:

C-313/04, [2006] EUECJ C-313/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Rotherham 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture

Updated: 21 July 2022; 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.

Citations:

C-391/07, [2008] EUECJ C-391/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278685

Deepdock Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v the Welsh Ministers: Admn 30 Oct 2007

Parties who depended on inshore marine life objected to the proposed planning permission for a marina which they said would adversely affect the seabed and their industries.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3347 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Agriculture

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271166

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.

Citations:

C-143/07, [2008] EUECJ C-143/07

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 14 July 2022; 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

Citations:

C-207/06, [2008] EUECJ C-207/06 – O

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 615/98, Directive 91/628/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Schwaninger 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Animals

Updated: 13 July 2022; 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.

Judges:

Latham LJ, Davis J

Citations:

Times 11-May-2007, [2007] EWHC 614 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Forestry Act 1967 17(1), Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rex v Willace 1797
The commencement of a prosecution was held to be ‘the information and proceeding before the magistrate’. . .
Cited – Price 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.
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Director 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 . .
Mentioned – Lloyd 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. . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Atkinson 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 Also – Rockall 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Agriculture

Updated: 10 July 2022; 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

Judges:

Kokott AG

Citations:

C-441/05, [2006] EUECJ C-441/05 – O

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Opinion – Roquette 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture

Updated: 08 July 2022; 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.

Citations:

C-130/05, [2006] EUECJ C-130/05

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 97/78/EC

European, Agriculture

Updated: 07 July 2022; 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

Citations:

T-221/04, [2006] EUECJ T-221/04

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 07 July 2022; 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.

Judges:

Crane J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1833 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Cross Compliance) (England) Regulations 2004, Rights of Way Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited – Gomez de la Cruz Talegon v Commission ECFI 9-Feb-2000
Europa Officials – Request for reclassification in grade – Objection of inadmissibility – Material new fact – Admissibility. . .
Cited – European 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.
Cited – Etablissements 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Land, European

Updated: 07 July 2022; 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.

Judges:

Mr Justice Moses Lord Justice Dyson Lady Justice Smith

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 699

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 20-Dec-2002
. .
Now set aside – 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 . .
See Also – Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another CA 6-Apr-2006
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Bancoult, 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Administrative

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242360

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

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Mr Justice Moses

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1658

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Agriculture, Insolvency

Updated: 05 July 2022; 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.

Judges:

Hamblen J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1721 (QB), [2010] 1 CMLR 12

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Fisheries Act 1981, Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy) Regulations 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kleinwort 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 from – Bloomsbury 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 instance – Bloomsbury 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Administrative, European

Updated: 04 July 2022; 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.

Citations:

C-12/04, [2005] EUECJ C-12/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 04 July 2022; 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.

Citations:

C-11/04, [2005] EUECJ C-11/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 04 July 2022; 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.

Citations:

C-453/03, [2005] EUECJ C-453/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235842

Finanzamt Arnsberg v Stadt Sundern (Taxation): ECJ 26 May 2005

ECJ Sixth Directive – Article 25 – Common flat-rate scheme for farmers – Grant of hunting licences within the framework of a municipal forestry undertaking – Concept of ‘agricultural service’.

Citations:

C-43/04, [2005] EUECJ C-43/04

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture, VAT

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225317

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

Citations:

C-283/03, [2005] EUECJ C-283/03, [2005] ECR I-4255

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225315

Societe d’exportation de produits agricoles SA (SEPA) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas: ECJ 26 May 2005

ECJ Export refunds – Beef – Special emergency slaughtering – Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 – Article 13 – Sound and fair marketable quality – Marketability in normal conditions.

Citations:

C-409/03, [2005] EUECJ C-409/03

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225316

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 .

Citations:

R-13/88, [1989] EUECJ R-13/88

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation No 1009/86; Commission Regulation No 2169/86 4(3)

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; 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.

Citations:

R-212/87, [1988] EUECJ R-212/87

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215648

Attorney General v Burgoa: ECJ 14 Oct 1980

Citations:

R-812/79, [1980] EUECJ R-812/79, [1980] ECR 2787

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – British 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214939

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.

Citations:

R-119/79, [1980] EUECJ R-119/79

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; 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.

Citations:

R-128/79, [1980] EUECJ R-128/79

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Emerald 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Agriculture, European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214891

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.

Citations:

R-146/77, [1978] EUECJ R-146/77

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; 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)

Citations:

C-65-75, [1976] EUECJ R-65/75

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214468

Sociedade Agricola Dos Arinhos v Commission T-47/99: ECJ 7 Feb 2001

ECJ Action for annulment – Commission Decision 98/653/EC – Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal – Natural or legal persons – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Admissibility

Citations:

[2001] EUECJ T-47/99

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213959

Sociedade Agricola Dos Arinhos v Commission T-41/99: ECJ 7 Feb 2001

ECJ Action for annulment – Commission Decision 98/653/EC – Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal – Natural or legal persons – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Admissibility

Citations:

[2001] EUECJ T-41/99

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213953

Sociedade Agricola Dos Arinhos v Commission T-45/99: ECJ 7 Feb 2001

ECJ Action for annulment – Commission Decision 98/653/EC – Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal – Natural or legal persons – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Admissibility

Citations:

[2001] EUECJ T-45/99

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213957

Sociedade Agricola Dos Arinhos v Commission T-39/99: ECJ 7 Feb 2001

ECJ Action for annulment – Commission Decision 98/653/EC – Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal – Natural or legal persons – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Admissibility

Citations:

[2001] EUECJ T-39/99

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213951

Mansi v Elstree Rural District Council: QBD 1964

The local planning authority served an enforcement notice reciting that the appellant had changed the use of a glasshouse on a nursery garden from use for agricultural purposes to the use for the sale of goods and requiring the appellant to discontinue the latter use. No reference was made in the notice to the former subsidiary use for the retail sale of nursery produce and other articles nor was there any provision for its continuance. The court held that the Minister ought to have amended the notice under the powers given to him so as to make it perfectly clear that the notice did not prevent the appellant from using the premises for the sale of goods by retail, provided that such sale was on the scale and in the manner to which he was entitled in 1959, as the Minister himself had found. True that use was a subsidiary one, but nevertheless it should be protected and, in my judgment, this appeal should be allowed to the extent that the decision in question should be sent back to the Minister with a direction that he ought to amend the notice so as to safeguard the appellant’s established right as found by the Minister to carry on retail trade in the manner and to the extent to which the Minister had found it was carried on in 1959.

Judges:

Widgery J

Citations:

(1964) 16 P and CR 158

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v North West Estates plc and others ChD 31-May-2002
The planning authority sought injunctions for enforcement notices. The landowner argued that human rights law required the court when looking at such a request to look at the entire planning history.
Held: Although the court could look to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Agriculture

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.183688

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.’

Citations:

C-331/88, R-88/14, [1990] EUECJ R-88/146, [1990] ECR I-4023

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EEC Treaty 39 43, Council Directive 88/146

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Consorzio 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 . .
Cited – Bank 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 . .
Cited – Rotherham 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 . .
Cited – Akerman-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 . .
Cited – Lumsdon 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 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Gubeladze SC 19-Jun-2019
The claimant had come from Latvia to the UK in 2008, but not registered under the Worker Registration Scheme until 2010. She now sought state pension credit. The SS appealed from a judgment that it was to calculate her entitlement to include her . .
Cited – Micula and Others v Romania SC 19-Feb-2020
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the CJEU.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Health

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.134975

Commission v Italy C-381/01: ECJ 15 Jul 2004

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 77/388/EEC – VAT – Article 11(A)(1)(a) – Taxable amount – Subsidy directly linked to the price – Regulation (EC) No 603/95 – Aid granted in the dried fodder secto

Citations:

[2004] EUECJ C-381/01

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT, Agriculture

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199449