Johnston v O’Neill: HL 14 Jul 1911

An exclusive right was claimed to the eel-fishing over the whole of Lough Neagh, a large navigable non-tidal inland lough in Ireland by the holders of a long lease, who were in right of a title to the fishings conferred by the Crown in 1661. The title of the Crown had been previously affirmed in certain inquisitions. The claimants and their authors produced some leases of the fishings in the lough, and proved occasional payments made in respect thereof at various dates since the date of the Crown grant. It was proved in defence, and not disputed, that the public had for centuries fished for eels habitually and continuously in the lough as of right. Judgment in favour of the lessees was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ireland (Sir S. Walker, L.C., Fitzgibbon and Holmes, L.JJ). The defendants appealed.
Held: Held that the public cannot prescribe a right of fishing in inland non-tidal waters, and ( diss. the Lord Chancellor, Lords Shaw and Robson) that the claimants had sufficiently established their title to the exclusive enjoyment of the fishings notwithstanding the continuous practice of fishing by the public.
Per Lord Macnaghten-‘The Crown is not of common right entitled to the soil or waters of an inland non-tidal lake. No right can exist in the public to fish in the waters of an inland non-tidal lake.’
Per Lord Dunedin-‘The public cannot have a right to the fishing in question. The Crown may have had a right to it when it granted the patent. The only competitor to the Crown and its patentee must be some other private owner or owners, corporation or quasi-corporation.’

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, Dunedin, Shaw, and Robson

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Agriculture

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619210

United Kingdom v Commission C-133/84: ECJ 17 Apr 1986

ECJ (Judgment) 1. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – seed – production aid – peas and field beans intended for sowing – cumulation with aid for the same products used in animal feed – not permissible – determining which aid scheme is applicable – criterion – actual use – undue payments – protection of legitimate expectation – not possible
(regulation(eec) no 2358/71 of the council, arts 1 and 3(1); council regulation(eec) no 1119/78, art. 2(1); and council regulation(eec) no 2036/82)
2. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – milk and milk products – skimmed-milk powder and butter from public stocks – sale at reduced prices – conversion into national currency of the price expressed in units of account – exchange rate applicable – rate in force on the date of the event by virtue of which the amount involved in the transaction becomes due, as defined by national law
(regulation(eec) no 1134/68 of the council, arts 4 and 6)

Citations:

[1986] EUECJ C-133/84

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133889

Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food Ex Parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd: ECJ 23 May 1996

The wrongful prevention by a state of the lawful export of animals gave rise to a right to claim for damages.
LMA The UK had refused to grant licences for the export of live sheep to Spain, on the grounds that the slaughterhouses were not complying with the terms of an EC Directive requiring the stunning of animals before slaughter. The UK conceded they were in breach of the Treaty provision on export restrictions but argued that it was justified on the grounds of animal welfare.
Held: This was a sufficiently serious breach, on the basis of

  • Lack of discretion left to MS
  • Clarity of the Treaty provision breached
  • Absence of an established ground for justification.
    Where MS was not called upon to make any legislative choices and had considerably reduced/no discretion – a mere infringement of community law may be sufficient to establish ‘as sufficiently serious breach’
  • Citations:

    Times 06-Jun-1996, [1996] ECR 1 2553, C-5/94, [1997] QB 139, [1996] EUECJ C-5/94

    Links:

    Bailii

    Cited by:

    CitedRegina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte Lay and Gage Admn 15-May-1995
    The claimants sought damages for the wrong interpretation of the law by the Ministry, which had restricted their rights to milk quota.
    Held: Making an administrative decision which was in breach of European law was not enough in itself to . .
    CitedOakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others CA 20-Oct-2005
    It was argued that the Secretary of State, when implementing the Directive in the 2001 Regulations, had exceeded his powers in preserving provisions of the Registered Designs Act. The judge had held the Seceretary had exceeded his powers. The . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, European

    Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87360

    Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex parte Anastasiou (P) Ltd: ECJ 1 Aug 1994

    Turkish Cypriot produce was not acceptable for import without a proper origin label. A certificate from a non-community country was not acceptable, there being no standards of control.

    Citations:

    Times 14-Jul-1994, Ind Summary 01-Aug-1994, C-432/92, [1994] ECR I-3087, [1994] EUECJ C-432/92

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Cited by:

    See alsoRamondin and Ramondin Capsulas v Commission (State Aid) ECJ 11-Nov-2004
    Where the European Courts has power to permit interventions in direct actions they exercise the power in a restrictive manner, and allow interventions only by those persons able to establish a direct interest in the ruling on the specific act whose . .
    CitedFootball Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure (A Trading Name) and Others ChD 13-Nov-2008
    Football organisations applied to be joined to a case being remitted to the European Court for the purpose of giving their views on the questions raised. The European Court practice only allowed for states to act as interveners. The court had . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture

    Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87354

    Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Bray: QBD 13 Apr 1999

    A bylaw, restricting fishing by reference to the size of the ship, was valid. The words must not be construed out of context of the whole Act, and in this case an ‘instrument’ used for fishing did not include the vessel itself.

    Citations:

    Gazette 21-Apr-1999, Times 13-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 252

    Links:

    Bailii

    Statutes:

    Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966

    Environment, Agriculture

    Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87363

    North Devon District Council v Secretary of State for Environment, D Rottenbury B E Rottenbury: QBD 12 May 1998

    A mandatory agricultural occupancy condition was not subject to a continuous breach when cottages were occupied over summer by visitors rather than by agricultural workers as required by the permission.

    Citations:

    Times 12-May-1998, Gazette 28-May-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 458

    Links:

    Bailii

    Statutes:

    Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

    Agriculture, Planning

    Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84341

    Jensen v Landbrugsministeriet – Ef – Direktorat: ECJ 9 Sep 1998

    Where a farmer had a claim for subsidy from a member state and at the same time the farmer owed money to the state the state had a right to set-off the one against the other before making payment of the subsidy, if did not undermine EC market organisation

    Citations:

    Gazette 09-Sep-1998, C-132/95, Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 14/98, [1998] EUECJ C-132/95

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Agriculture, European

    Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82514

    Bracken v East Hertfordshire District Council: QBD 11 May 2000

    An enforcement notice was served on the land owner alleging change of use from agricultural to the storage of building materials and waste and agriculture. The plan incorrectly included the applicant’s house. The applicant challenged the enforcement notice, but failed before the magistrates and on a case stated. The error did not mean that the enforcement notice ceased to be such, and could have been dealt with by other procedures.

    Citations:

    Gazette 11-May-2000

    Statutes:

    Town and Country Planning Act 1990 179(2)

    Agriculture, Planning

    Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78536

    Dixon v James: 1698

    Qutere, whether one commoner can destrain the cattle of another, who surcharges with cattle not levant and couchant (a) 1 Case lies by one commoner against another for surcharging with cattle not legant and couchant. In such case the lord may destrain. One commoner may destrain the cattle of another, where the common is for a certain number of cattle.
    The case :- The landlorders had common for all beasts levant and couchant upon their estates : the plaintiff and defendant were both entitled to this common ; and the plaintiff putting in more cattle than were levarit and couchant upon his estate, the defendnt distrained them : and the question was, whether one commoner might
    distrain another in this case : Any commoner may destrain the cattle of a stranger.

    Citations:

    [1698] EngR 14, (1698) Freem KB 273, (1698) 89 ER 195 (B)

    Links:

    Commonlii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Agriculture

    Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.384401

    Hudson v Macrae: 14 Nov 1863

    Angling. Jurisdiction of justices. Claim of right. Non-navigable river. Bona fides. Mens rea. In answer to an information before two justices under stat. 24 and 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 24, for unlawfully and wilfully attempting to take fish in water where another person had a private right of fishery, by angling at an hour not between the beginning of the last hour before sunrise and the expiration of the first hour after sunset, the accused justified under a supposed right on the part of the public to fish in that water.

    Citations:

    [1863] EngR 949, (1863) 4 B and S 585, (1863) 122 ER 579

    Links:

    Commonlii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Land, Agriculture

    Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.283604

    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

    Cited by:

    CitedBuckinghamshire 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183688

    Sir Robert Edward Wilmot, Baronet v Joseph Rose: 25 Apr 1854

    Sect. 11 of the Act ‘To regulate the sale of farming stock taken in execution,’ 56 G. 3, e. 50, enacts that no assignee of any bankrupt or insolvent debtors’ estate, or under any bill of sale, nor any purchaser of the goods, chattels, stock or crop of any peraon employed in husbandry, on lands let to farm, shall use or dispose of any produce of such land in any other manner, and for any other purpose, than sucb bankrupt, insolvent, or other person employed in husbandry, ought to have used or disposed of the same if there had been no bankruptcy, assignment or sale made.-Held : that this prohibitioti as to purchasers is not confined to purchasers under an execution.

    Citations:

    [1854] EngR 424, (1854) 3 El and Bl 563, (1854) 118 ER 1253

    Links:

    Commonlii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Agriculture, Insolvency

    Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.293281

    Grammer v Lane and Others: CA 2 Dec 1999

    A partnership involving the plaintiff took a tenancy of agricutural land. The plaintiff then said that the tenency had been extended to other land. The successor to the freehold denied that extension, but served a rent demand and for repairs both ‘without prejudice’ to the question of the existence of the tenancy. Matters were referred to the arbitrator.
    Held: Where there was a dispute as to the existence of an agricultural tenancy, a party could nevertheless make use of notices and procedures for the protection of the tenancy on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. Where there were statutory arbitration proceedings also, the arbitrator had the choice of delaying those proceedings pending resolution of the issues as to the existence of the tenancy, of stating a case for the county court, or declining jurisdiction.

    Judges:

    Peter Gibson LJ, Mance LJ, Wilson J

    Citations:

    Times 02-Dec-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999

    Statutes:

    Agricultural Holdings Act 1986

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    CitedRegina v Fulham, Hammersmith and Kensington Rent Tribunal, ex parte Zerek 1951
    A rent tribunal could not give itself jurisdiction over an unfurnished letting. Devlin J said: ‘While they will not allow every empty threat to their jurisdiction to deter them from their proper business of fixing reasonable rents, they will . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant, Arbitration

    Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80966

    Duke of Somerset v Fogwell: 1826

    Where a subject is owner of a several fishery in a navigable river, where the tide flows and reflows, granted to him (as must be presumed) before Magna Charta, by the description of ‘separalem piscariam,’ that is an incorporeal and not a territorial hereditament, and a term for years in it cannot be created without deed. Semble, that the owner of a several fishery, in ordinary cases, and where the terms of the grant are unknown, may be presumed to be owner of the soil.

    Citations:

    (1826) 5 B and C 875, [1826] EngR 601, (1826) 108 ER 325

    Links:

    Commonlii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    AppliedThe Case of the Royal Fishery of the Banne 1610
    A royal fishery did not pass by a general grant of all fisheries, because general words in a grant did not pass ‘special royalty which belongeth to the Crown by prerogative’. . .

    Cited by:

    CitedCrown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
    The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
    Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Land

    Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269750

    Commission of the European Communities (supported by United Kingdom, intervener) v French Republic: ECJ 13 Dec 2001

    Europe had banned the export of beef from England to prevent the sale of BSE infected meat. The ban was lifted under strict conditions set under Community veterinary advice. The French Republic retained their ban, and continued it despite instruction from the Commission to lift it, saying that their own national Food Safety Agency said there were still unresolved questions, regarding the traceability of certain product. Those concerns remained apposite as to some pre-packed products, but as to the rest the complaint was upheld.

    Judges:

    CJ Rodriguez Iglesias, P and Judges P Jann, F Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, C. Gulmann, DAO Edward, A. La Pergola, J-P Puissochet, L Sevon, M Wathelet, R Schintgen and V Skouris Advocate General J Mischo

    Citations:

    Times 19-Dec-2001, Case C-1/00

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture, European, Commercial

    Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.167073

    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.
    Europa ‘It is clear from the provisions of the amended regulations that the aims of the Community schemes for the protection of forests are partly agricultural since they are intended in particular to contribute to safeguarding the productive potential of agriculture, and partly of a specifically environmental nature, since their primary objective is to maintain and monitor forest ecosystems.
    In such circumstances it is necessary, in order to determine the appropriate legal basis, to consider whether the measures in question relate principally to a particular field of action, having only incidental effects on other policies, or whether both aspects are equally essential. If the first hypothesis is correct, recourse to a single legal basis is sufficient . . ; if the second is correct, it is insufficient . . and the institution is required to adopt the measure on the basis of both the provisions from which its competence derives . . . However, no such dual basis is possible where the procedures laid down for each legal basis are incompatible with each other . . .
    With more particular reference to the common agricultural policy and the Community environmental policy, there is nothing in the case-law to indicate that, in principle, one should take preference over the other. It makes clear that a Community measure cannot be part of Community action on environmental matters merely because it takes account of requirements of protection referred to in Article 130r(2) of the EC Treaty . . . Articles 130r and 130s leave intact the powers held by the Community under other provisions of the Treaty and provide a legal basis only for specific action on environmental matters . . . In contrast, Article 130s of the Treaty must be the basis for provisions which fall specifically within the environmental policy . . , even if they have an impact on the functioning of the internal market . . or if their objective is the improvement of agricultural production . .

    Citations:

    C-164/97

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Cited by:

    CitedHorvath, 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 . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Environment

    Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.162111

    Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fish and Food ex parte Cox: CA 16 Feb 1993

    The temporary transferee of part of an agricultural unit which held a dairy quota, must come to be actually operating the agricultural unit before he could make a claim for the transfer of any associated milk quota.

    Citations:

    Times 16-Feb-1993

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Agriculture, Land

    Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87355

    Spika and Others v Fisheries Service under the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania: ECJ 12 Jul 2018

    Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common fisheries policy – Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 – Article 16 (6) and Article 17 – Allocation of fishing opportunities – National legislation providing for a method based on objective and transparent criteria – Conditions for fishing competition between operators in the sector – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 16 and 20 – Freedom of enterprise – Equal treatment – Proportionality

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2018:565, C-540/16, [2018] EUECJ C-540/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture, Human Rights

    Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620047

    Stewart v Williamson: HL 29 Apr 1910

    A lease of a sheep farm for five years expiring at Whitsunday 1909. provided that at the expiry of the lease ‘the tenant shall leave the sheep stock on the farm to the proprietors or incoming tenant according to the valuation of men mutually chosen, with power to name an oversman.’ The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1908, section 11 (1), enacts-‘All questions which under this Act or under the lease are referred to arbitration shall . . be determined, notwithstanding any agreement under the lease or otherwise providing for a different method of arbitration, by a single arbiter in accordance with the provisions set out in the second schedule to this Act.’ Held that the Act applied, and that a single arbiter fell to be appointed.

    Judges:

    Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Mersey

    Citations:

    47 SLR 536, [1910] UKHL 2, 1910 1 SLT 326, 1910 SC (HL) 47, [1910] AC 455, [1910] UKHL 536

    Links:

    Bailii, Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    Scotland

    Citing:

    At SCSStewart v Williamson SCS 13-Jul-1909
    . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Arbitration, Agriculture

    Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619791

    Booker Aquaculture Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland: OHCS 24 Sep 1998

    Where a fish farmer’s crop had been ordered to be destroyed for disease control, but there was no provision in the regulations for compensation for the losses, the regulation was unlawful as breach of European law.

    Citations:

    Times 24-Sep-1998

    Statutes:

    Fish Health Regulations 1992 (1992 No 3300)

    Jurisdiction:

    Scotland

    Cited by:

    Appeal fromReclaiming Motion In Pet of Booker Aquaculture Ltd v The Secretary of State for Scotland for Judicial Review of the Regulations SCS 12-Aug-1999
    . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture

    Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.78483

    Firma Schwarzwaldmilch GmbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fur Fettee (Judgment): ECJ 11 Jul 1968

    Europa 1. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – milk – imports subject to the production of a licence – importation impossible during the term of validity of such licence – case of force majeure – ‘ engine failure ‘ within the meaning of article 6(3) of regulation no 136/64/eec of the commission – concept 2. Force majeure – concept 3. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – milk – importation subject to the production of a licence – importation impossible during the term of validity of such licence – case of force majeure relied on by the importer – evidence to be adduced (regulation no 136/64/eec, article 6(2)) 4. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – milk – importation subject to the production of a licence – importation impossible during the term of validity of such licence – case of force majeure – national courts – jurisdiction in cases not referred to in article 6(3) or not recognized by the national authorities in accordance with article 6(4) of regulation no 136/64/eec 1. The concept of ‘ engine failure ‘ referred to in article 6(3) of regulation no 136/64/eec does not include failures which occur in machinery intended for the production of goods. 2. As the concept of force majeure is not identical in the different branches of law and the various fields of application, the significance of this concept must be determined on the basis of the legal framework within which it is intended to take effect. Recognition of a case of force majeure presupposes that the consequences of the unusual event to which this concept relates cannot be avoided. 3. Within the meaning of regulation no 136/64/eec, when an importer relies on force majeure he must show that he was unable to effect the importation within the period laid down as a result of unusual circumstances outside his control, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care on his part, he could not have avoided except at the cost of excessive sacrifice. 4. The courts of member states may, within the limits of their own jurisdiction, recognize the existence of a case of force majeure not only when the situation relied on is included in those enumerated in article 6(3) or when it has been recognized by the national authorities in accordance with paragraph (4), but also in other specific cases which justify the application of the exemption referred to in article 6(2).

    Citations:

    C-4/68

    European, Agriculture

    Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131867

    Mayne and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: QBD 3 Aug 2000

    The defendants exported beef without the requisite certificates. The UK rules had been made before a Directive came into effect. On appeal after conviction the defendant argued that the rules purported to take account of future amendments. It was held that for a criminal sanction to be applicable, Regulations could not give effect to directives made by a third party without appropriate and explicit incorporation of those amendments. A regulation imposing sanctions for failure to comply with an EC Directive is not to be read as applying to future amendments to the Directive unless the wording of the regulations is such as clearly to take account of the possibility of future amendments.

    Judges:

    Kennedy LJ and Jackson

    Citations:

    Times 12-Oct-2000, Gazette 03-Aug-2000, [2001] EHLR 5

    Cited by:

    AppliedSecretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v ASDA Stores Ltd and Another QBD 24-Jun-2002
    The defendant store had been accused of failing to comply with standards for grading of agricultural produce. They had been acquitted, following Mayne, on the basis that the prosecution was under European regulations introduced after the Act . .
    CitedDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v ASDA Stores Limited and another HL 18-Dec-2003
    The company was prosecuted for offences under the Regulations, relating to the designation of horticultural produce for sale. The original Act had been relied upon to implement the European regulations after entry to the EU.
    Held: The offences . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Administrative, Crime, European, Agriculture

    Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83488

    Knapdale (Nominees) Ltd v Donald and Another: OHCS 22 Aug 2000

    Despite the requirement for statutory notices, an agricultural tenancy could be terminated by an implied agreement for surrender. Nevertheless, a formal lease to a partnership was not to be deemed to be surrendered on the death of one partner, where the lease had been entered into in circumstances which suggested that the tenants did not appreciate technical the legal significance of the documents.

    Citations:

    Times 22-Aug-2000

    Statutes:

    Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 21(1)

    Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant

    Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82819

    Czech Republic v Commission – C-4/17: ECJ 12 Apr 2018

    Agriculture and Fisheries – Opinion Appeal – EAGF – Exclusion of certain expenditure from the financing of the European Union – Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic – Protection of vineyards against animals and birds – Legal certainty – Protection of legitimate expectations – Right to be heard

    Citations:

    ECLI: EU: C: 2018: 237, [2018] EUECJ C-4/17P – O

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608634

    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:

    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 . .
    CitedSecretary 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 . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    European, Agriculture, Health

    Leading Case

    Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.134975

    Industrias Quimicas Del Valles v Commission: ECJ 13 Mar 2018

    Placing On The Market of Plant Protection Products – Judgment – Appeal – Plant protection products – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 – Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution – Inclusion of active substance metalaxyl in that list – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU – Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures – Individually concerned person

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2018:177, [2018] EUECJ C-244/16P

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606011

    Portugal v Commission T-462/16: ECFI 9 Mar 2018

    Agriculture and Fisheries – Judgment – EAGF – Expenditure excluded from financing – Area aid – Expenditure by Portugal – Legitimal expectations – Article 41 (3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 – Article 31 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 – Proportionality

    Citations:

    T-462/16, [2018] EUECJ T-462/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606021

    Stody Estate Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 6 Mar 2018

    The claimant farming company appealed against reduction of its claim for payment under the single farm scheme after an employee had been convicted of an offence under the 1981 Act.
    Held: The claim succeeded. The ability to reduce the payment arose only where the act of non-compliance was ‘directly attributable’ to the person applying for the payment.

    Judges:

    May DBE J

    Citations:

    [2018] EWHC 378 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 148

    Links:

    Bailii, WLRD

    Statutes:

    Wildlife Conservation Act 1981 1

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Agriculture, European

    Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605889

    Smyth-Tyrrell and Another v Bowden: ChD 2 Feb 2018

    Application for a declaration that the property is an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, and/or an order for a new tenancy pursuant to section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 of the property, and/or a declaration that the tenancy of the property continues and/or that the claimants are entitled to such interest as the court thinks fit by way of proprietary estoppel.

    Citations:

    [2018] EWHC 106 (Ch)

    Links:

    Bailii

    Statutes:

    Agricultural Holdings Act 1986

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

    Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604202

    Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkuhlgemuse: ECJ 20 Dec 2017

    Agriculture and Fisheries – Fruit and Vegetables Agriculture and Fisheries – Fruit and Vegetables – Products Processed From Fruit and Vegetables Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Operational programme in the fruit and vegetables sector – Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 – Articles 103b, 103d and 103g – EU financial aid – Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 – Article 60 and point 23 of Annex IX – Investments on the holdings and/or premises of the producer organisations – Concept – Legitimate expectations – Legal certainty

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2017:1011, [2017] EUECJ C-516/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.602084

    Comite Interprofessionnel Du Vin De Champagne v Aldi: ECJ 20 Dec 2017

    Agriculture and Fisheries – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products – Protection of protected designations of origin (PDOs) – Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 – Article 118m(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) – Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 – Article 103(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) – Scope – Exploitation of the reputation of a PDO – Misuse, imitation or evocation of a PDO – False or misleading indication – PDO ‘Champagne’ used in the name of a foodstuff – The name ‘Champagner Sorbet’ – Foodstuff containing champagne as an ingredient – Ingredient conferring on the foodstuff an essential characteristic

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2017:991, [2017] EUECJ C-393/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.602076

    Binca Seafoods v Commission: ECJ 20 Dec 2017

    Agriculture and Fisheries – Fisheries Policy – Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 – Production and labelling of organic products – Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 – Interest in bringing proceedings – Notion of ‘personal benefit’

    Citations:

    C-268/16, [2017] EUECJ C-268/16P

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.602069

    Tilly-Sabco v Commission: ECJ 20 Sep 2017

    Judgment – Appeal – Agriculture – Poultrymeat – Frozen chickens – Export refunds – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 fixing the refund for zero euro – Legality – Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 – Articles 162 and 164 – Subject-matter and nature of refunds – Criteria for fixing the amounts thereof – Competence of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development to sign the contested regulation – Misuse of powers – Comitology – EU) No 182/2011 – Article 3 (3) – Consultation of the Management Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets – Delivering of the draft Regulations at the meeting of that Committee – Compliance with deadlines – Violation of forms – Cancellation with maintenance of effects

    Citations:

    C-183/16, [2017] EUECJ C-183/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595419

    Portugal v Commission T-261/16: ECFI 21 Sep 2017

    (Agriculture and Fisheries – European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Eaggf) : Judgment – EAGGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 – Direct support scheme for farmers – Regulations (EC) No 73/2009 and 1122/2009 – Milk quota system – ) Nos 1788/2003 and 595/2004 – Replacement of on-the-spot inspections of agricultural holdings by administrative checks

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:T:2017:639, [2017] EUECJ T-261/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595407

    Sharda Europe BVBA v Administracion del Estado, Syngenta Agro SA: ECJ 8 Jun 2017

    ECJ (Agriculture – Placing of Plant Protection Products On The Market : Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 2008/69/EC – Article 3(2) – Procedure for re-evaluation, by the Member States, of authorised plant protection products – Time limit – Divergence between the different language versions

    Citations:

    C-293/16, [2017] EUECJ C-293/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588299

    Schniga v Community Plant Variety Office: ECJ 8 Jun 2017

    ECJ (Appeal – Community Plant Variety Rights : Judgment) Appeal – Community plant variety rights – Application for a Community plant variety right – Apple variety ‘Gala Schnitzer’ – Technical examination – Test guidelines issued by the Administrative Council of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) – Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 – Article 23(1) – Powers of the President of the CPVO – Addition of a distinctive characteristic on completion of the technical examination – Stability of the characteristic during two growing cycles

    Citations:

    C-625/15, [2017] EUECJ C-625/15

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Intellectual Property, Agriculture

    Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588298

    Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v Tofutown.Com: ECJ 14 Jun 2017

    (Agriculture and Fisheries : Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products – Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 – Article 78 and Annex VII, Part III – Decision 2010/791/EU – Definitions, designations and sales descriptions – ‘Milk’ and ‘milk products’ – Designations used for the promotion and marketing of purely plant-based products

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2017:458, [2017] EUECJ C-422/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588304

    The Kingsbridge Pension Fund Trust v Downs, Re: Milstead Farm (Landlord and Tenant – Agricultural Holdings Act 1986): UTLC 6 Jun 2017

    Landlord and tenant – Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 – right to succession on retirement of tenant – eligibility dependent on nominated successor deriving principal livelihood from the holding for five years ‘in the last seven years’ – whether this ‘livelihood condition’ must be satisfied for the seven year period prior to the Tribunal’s determination of the successor’s application for a new tenancy as well as for the seven year period prior to the tenant’s retirement notice

    Citations:

    [2017] UKUT 237 (LC)

    Links:

    Bailii

    Statutes:

    Agricultural Holdings Act 1986

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

    Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.587783

    Schrader v CPVO – Hansson (Seimora): ECFI 4 May 2017

    ECJ Judgment – Plant varieties – Application for revocation of the Community plant variety right for SEIMORA – Application for annulment of the Community plant variety right granted to the variety SEIMORA – Application for Community plant variety rights in respect of the variety SUMOST 02 – Composition of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO – Principle of impartiality

    Citations:

    T-425/15, [2017] EUECJ T-425/15, ECLI:EU:T:2017:305, [2021] EUECJ T-425/15DEPII_CO

    Links:

    Bailii, Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Intellectual Property, Agriculture

    Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584349

    Portugal v Commission C-337/16: ECJ 17 May 2017

    (Judgment) Appeal – EAGF and EAFRD – Commission Implementing Decision – Notification to the addressee – Subsequent correction of the printing format of the Annex – Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union – Time-limit for appeal – Point – Late – Inadmissibility

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2017:381, [2017] EUECJ C-337/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584340

    Portugal v Commission C-338/16: ECJ 17 May 2017

    (Judgment) Appeal – EAGF and EAFRD – Commission Implementing Decision – Notification to the addressee – Subsequent correction of the printing format of the Annex – Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union – Time-limit for appeal – Point – Late – Inadmissibility

    Citations:

    [2017] EUECJ C-338/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:382

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584341

    Germany v Commission T-28/16: ECFI 3 Apr 2017

    ECJ Judgment – EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Rural development – Reparcelling and renovations of villages – Criteria for selecting operations – Principle of loyal cooperation – Subsidiarity – Legitimate expectation – Proportionality – Obligation to state reasons

    Citations:

    T-28/16, [2017] EUECJ T-28/16, ECLI:EU:T:2017:242

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581712

    Greece v Commission T-112/15: ECFI 30 Mar 2017

    ECJ Judgment – EAGGF – Guarantee Section – EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 – Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 – Aid scheme for the surface area – Concept of permanent pasture – Obligation to state reasons – Proportionality – Fixed financial correction – Deduction from previous correction

    Citations:

    T-112/15, [2017] EUECJ T-112/15

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581704

    Lingurar v Miniszterelnokseget vezeto miniszter: ECJ 30 Mar 2017

    ECJ Judgment : Common Agricultural Policy – Eafrd Financing – Rural Development Support – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common agricultural policy – EAFRD financing – Rural development support – Natura 2000 payments – Eligibility limited to private owners – Forest area partially owned by the State

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2017:244, [2017] EUECJ C-315/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581706

    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 relating to journey times and rest periods and to the transportation of bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Community – Feeding and watering of the animals during the journey

    Citations:

    [2008] EUECJ C-207/06

    Links:

    Bailii

    Statutes:

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

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Citing:

    OpinionSchwaninger 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 . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Animals

    Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581323

    Netherlands v Commission T-501/15: ECFI 29 Mar 2017

    (Judgment) EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Integrated administration and control – Reductions and exclusions in case of non-compliance with the rules of conditionality – Minor Non-compliance – Article 24, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 – Article 71, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 – Burden of proof – Interpretation of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:T:2017:230, [2017] EUECJ T-501/15

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581307

    Andrew Stration, A Pauper v Thomas Graham of Balgowan, Esq: HL 28 Mar 1789

    Lease – Deviation from Mode of Cropping – Penalty. – A tack stipulated that the tenant was at liberty to deviate from the mode of cropping and management laid down in the tack upon his paying andpound;2. per acre more of additional rent to the landlord. He departed from the mode of cropping. Held, in the Court of Session, that he was liable to pay the andpound;2. of additional rent. Reversed in the House of Lords, and case remitted to ascertain and determine specially what was the number of acres the tenant became bound to cultivate in the manner specified in the tack, and what was the number of acres cultivated contrary to the conditions thereof.

    Citations:

    [1789] UKHL 3 – Paton – 119

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    Scotland

    Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

    Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580994

    Poland v Commission C-105/16: ECJ 9 Mar 2017

    ECJ (Agriculture and Fisheries : European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Agriculture and Fisheries : European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) – Judgment) Appeal – EAGGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from funding from the European Union – Rural Development – Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 – Article 33 b – Support for semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring – Obligation to devote at least 50% of the support of restructuring operations

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2017:191, [2017] EUECJ C-105/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580716

    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 authorities)

    Citations:

    [2009] EUECJ C-505/07

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Citing:

    OpinionCompania 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 . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture

    Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578899

    Romania v Commission T-145/15: ECFI 16 Feb 2017

    ECJ (Judgment) EAGGF and EAFRD – Area-related measures – Expenditure excluded from financing – Flat-rate financial corrections – Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 – Obligation to state reasons – Proportionality

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:T:2017:86, [2017] EUECJ T-145/15

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575276

    Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v Etat belge: ECJ 9 Feb 2017

    ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Sugar – Production levies – Calculation of the average loss – Calculation of production levies – Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 – Validity – Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 – Validity

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2017:105, [2017] EUECJ C-585/15

    Links:

    Bailii

    Statutes:

    Regulation (EC) No 2267/200, Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573939

    France v Commission C-373/15: ECJ 26 Jan 2017

    ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – Expenditure excluded from EU financing – Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796/2004 – Rural development support measures – Areas with natural handicaps – On-the-spot controls – Coefficient density of livestock – Counting of animals

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2017:55, [2017] EUECJ C-373/15

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573807

    Spain v Commission C-506/15: ECJ 26 Jan 2017

    ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – Expenditure excluded from the financing of the European Union – Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796 / 2004 – Measures to support rural development – Areas of natural handicap – On-the-spot checks – Livestock density – Counting of animals

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2017:42, [2017] EUECJ C-506/15

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573818

    Spain v Council – C-128/15: ECJ 11 Jan 2017

    ECJ (Judgment) Actions for annulment – Fisheries – Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 – Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 – Validity – Fishing opportunities – Precautionary approach – Principle of relative stability of fishing activities – Principle of proportionality – Principle of equal treatment – Roundnose grenadier and roughhead grenadier

    Citations:

    [2017] EUECJ C-128/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:3

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573266

    Bensider v Commission: ECJ 23 May 1984

    ECJ (Judgment) Application for the adoption of interim measures – suspension of operation – conditions governing the grant of such a measure – main proceedings brought out of time

    Citations:

    [1984] EUECJ C-50/84R

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    See AlsoBensider v Commission ECJ 27-Nov-1984
    . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture

    Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573239

    Grund v Landesamt fur Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und landliche Raume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein: ECJ 2 Oct 2014

    ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common agricultural policy – Common rules for direct support schemes – Single payment scheme – Definition of ‘permanent pasture’ – Land used to grow grass and other herbaceous forage not part of the system of crop rotation of the holding for a minimum of five years – Land ploughed up and sown with a type of herbaceous forage other than that previously grown on it during that period)

    [2014] EUECJ C-47/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2248
    Bailii
    European
    Citing:
    OpinionGrund v Landesamt fur Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und landliche Raume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein ECJ 30-Apr-2014
    ECJ (Advocate General’s Opinion) Agriculture – Direct support scheme – Definition of ‘permanent pasture’ – Land used for more than five years for production of grass or other herbaceous forage – Change of type of . .

    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture

    Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572695

    T and L Sugars Ltd v European Commission: 29 Nov 2016

    Non-contractual liability – Agriculture – Sugar – Exceptional measures – Availability of supply on the EU market – 2010/11 marketing year – Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Sufficiently serious infringement – Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 – Principle of non-discrimination – Proportionality – Legitimate expectations – Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration

    [2016] EUECJ T-279/11, ECLI:EU:T:2016:683
    Bailii
    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572709

    T and L Sugars and Sidul Acucares v Commission: ECFI 29 Nov 2016

    ECJ Judgment – Non-contractual liability – Agriculture – Sugar – Exceptional measures – Availability of supply on the EU market – 2011/12 marketing year – Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Sufficiently serious infringement Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 – Principle of non-discrimination – Proportionality – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations – Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration

    T-103/12, [2016] EUECJ T-103/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:682
    Bailii
    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571979

    Stodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye: ChD 7 Oct 2016

    The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the County court, against whose finding and order that the notices were invalid, both defendants now appealed. The landlords argued that the usual requirement for such a notice to be given by the person in whom the reversionary estate is vested did not apply to an agricultural tenancy.
    Held: The court rejected that argument. Distinguishing Scribes, West, the argument under section 141 of the 1925 Act failed also.

    Norris J
    [2016] EWHC 2454 (Ch), [2016] WLR(D) 519
    Bailii, WLRD
    Land Registration Act 2002 27(10, Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 96, Law of Property Act 1925 141(2), Land Registration Act 2002 24
    England and Wales
    Citing:
    CitedStait v Fenner 1912
    The lease to Fenner contained a break clause. The lease was legally assigned to X and then to Y. Y then agreed to assign back to Fenner (but no formal assignment was entered). Fenner then ‘assigned’ to Z (the contract saying that he was not obliged . .
    CitedSchalit v Joseph Nadler Ltd CA 1933
    Mr Nadler was a lessee of property, part of which he sublet to the plaintiff. In 1931 he made a declaration of trust, under which he declared that the property was held in trust for his company, Joseph Nadler Ltd. Shortly after the company purported . .
    CitedFreeman v Hambrook 1947
    . .
    CitedThompson v McCullough CA 1947
    Thompson had agreed to buy a tenanted property, had paid part of the purchase price, and had received a conveyance in escrow pending payment of the balance. He at that point gave McCullough notice to quit. Two months later Thompson paid the balance . .
    CitedLever Finance Ltd v Needleman’s Trustee ChD 1954
    In a mortgage, the transferee of a registered charge appointed a receiver during the ‘registration gap’.
    Held: Until registration the transferee could not exercise the statutory power to appoint a receiver. . .
    CitedSmith v Express Dairy Limited ChD 1954
    Express Dairy (as registered owner) let a shop to Smith, but then transferred its interest to a subsidiary company. The subsidiary did not become registered as owner but nonetheless served notice to quit on Smith.
    Held: Unless the subsidiary . .
    CitedDivall v Harrison CA 1992
    A notice to quit the agricultural land had been given in the name of the residuary beneficiary, not in the name of the executors in whom the reversion was still vested.
    Held: The notice was invalid. The residuary beneficiary was not the . .
    CitedRenshaw v Magnet Properties South East LLP 2008
    (Central London County Court) . .
    CitedLankester and Son Ltd v Rennie and Another CA 2-Dec-2014
    The transfer of a lease remained unregistered.
    Held: The court acknowledged the importance of not confusing the equitable rights as between transferor and transferee with the legal rights as between landlord and tenant. . .
    DistinguishedScribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt and others CA 20-Dec-2004
    The claimant challenged the forfeiture of its lease by a freeholder which had acquired the registered freehold title but had not yet registered its ownership. The second defendant had forfeited the lease by peacable re-entry for arrears of rent, and . .

    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Registered Land, Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

    Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570346

    Breitsamer Und Ulrich and Co KG v Landeshauptstadt Munchen: ECJ 22 Sep 2016

    ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2000/13/EC – Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs – Article 1(3)(b) – Concept of ‘pre-packaged foodstuff’ – Article 2 – Consumer information and protection – Article 3(1)(8) – Place of origin or provenance of a foodstuff – Article 13(1) – Labelling of a prepackaged foodstuff – Article 13(4) – Packaging or containers the largest surface of which has an area of less than 10 cm2 – Directive 2001/110/EC – Article 2(4) – Indication of the country or countries of origin of honey – Individual portions of honey packaged in cartons supplied to mass caterers – Individual portions sold separately or supplied to ultimate consumers as part of meals for an all-inclusive price – Indication of the country or countries of origin of that honey

    ECLI:EU:C:2016:718, [2016] EUECJ C-113/15
    Bailii
    Directive 2000/13/EC
    European

    Consumer, Agriculture

    Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569496

    Azienda Agricola Disaro Antonio and Others v Cooperativa Milka 2000 Soc coop Ar: ECJ 14 May 2009

    ECJ Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets Milk quotas Levy Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 Objectives of the common agricultural policy Principles of non-discrimination and proportionality Determination of the national reference quantity Criteria Relevance of the criterion of a Member State’s milk production deficit

    [2009] EUECJ C-34/08, C-34/08
    Bailii
    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568847

    Taylor v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 30 Jan 2001

    An area with a hard surface which was used as a hard standing for feeding sheep, and which was formed by deposit of builder’s rubble was not a habitation and therefore was not used for the accommodation of sheep. Since the landowner was entitled to create such a surface, and entitled to use such waste in that construction, the order to remove it would create unnecessary work and expense.

    Times 30-Jan-2001, Gazette 22-Feb-2001
    Town and Country Planning Act 1990 289, Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (1995 No 419)
    England and Wales
    Citing:
    CitedCowen v Secretary of State for Environment Peak District National Park Authority CA 26-May-1999
    A land-owner laid a tarmac surface on a path within the National Park. This was held to be an improvement required for the right of way. The fact that works constituted an alteration did not avoid the protection given as an improvement. . .

    Cited by:
    Appeal fromTaylor and Sons (Farms) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Three Rivers District Council CA 31-Jul-2001
    Over a long period of time the applicants had deposited large quantities of waste on their land to hard standings and tracks. They were served with enforcement notices alleging a change from agricultural use, to agricultural use with waste deposit, . .

    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Planning

    Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.89751

    Obcina Gorje v Republika Slovenija: ECJ 7 Jul 2016

    ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common agricultural policy – Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 – Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 – Financing by the EAFRD – Support for rural development – Rules on eligibility of operations and expenditure – Temporal condition – Complete exclusion – Reduction of the aid

    ECLI:EU:C:2016:532, [2016] EUECJ C-111/15
    Bailii

    European, Agriculture

    Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566730

    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 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 – Illegality of a Community measure raised before the national court Reference for a preliminary ruling on validity Admissibility Conditions Inadmissibility of an action for annulment of the Community measure

    [2007] EUECJ C-441/05
    Bailii
    Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 24(2)
    Citing:
    OpinionRoquette 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 . .

    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, European

    Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565995

    Firma Theodor Pfister v Landkreis Main-Spessart: ECJ 23 Dec 2015

    ECJ (Judgment) Preliminary reference – Agriculture – Health Inspections – Official controls on feed and food – Financing of checks – inspection costs relating to slaughter operations – Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 – Directive 85/73 / EEC – Ability to charge an amount covering the actual cost of inspection fees above the amount of fees provided for by that directive

    ECLI:EU:C:2015:849, [2015] EUECJ C-58/15
    Bailii
    Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, Directive 85/73/EEC

    European, Agriculture

    Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565742

    ZS ‘Ezernieki’ v Lauku atbalsta dienests: ECJ 26 May 2016

    ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund – Regulations (EC) Nos 1257/1999 and 817/2004 – Support for rural development – Recovery of undue payments – Increase of the area declared during the five-year commitment period above the threshold provided for – Replacement of the original commitment by a new commitment – Non-compliance by the beneficiary with the obligation to submit an annual application for payment of aid – National legislation requiring the repayment of all aid paid over several years – Principle of proportionality – Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

    C-273/15, [2016] EUECJ C-273/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:364
    Bailii
    Regulation (EC) 1257/1999, Regulation (EC) 817/2004, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 17 52

    European, Human Rights, Agriculture

    Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564875

    United Kingdom v Commission: ECJ 5 May 1998

    Agriculture – Animal health – Emergency measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy – ‘Mad cow disease’

    ECLI:EU:C:1998:192, [1998] ECR I-2265, [1998] EUECJ C-180/96
    Bailii
    Citing:
    CitedUnited Kingdom v Commission ECJ 5-May-1998
    ECJ Order – 1. It is open to the Court hearing an application for interim relief to order the suspension of the operation of an act, or other interim measures, if it is established that such an order is . .

    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    European, Agriculture

    Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563385

    Pudans C-462/15: ECJ 28 Apr 2016

    ECJ (Order) Preliminary reference – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Common agricultural policy – Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 – Direct support schemes – Article 29, paragraph 1 – Obligation to make payments to beneficiaries in full – Income tax Income

    [2016] EUECJ C-462/15 – CO, ECLI: EU:C:2016:317
    Bailii

    European, Agriculture

    Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563390

    Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd: ECJ 19 Mar 1998

    Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
    ECJ (Free movement of goods) Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty – Directive 91/629/EEC – European Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes – Recommendation concerning Cattle – Export of calves from a Member State maintaining the level of protection laid down by the Convention and the Recommendation – Export to Member States which comply with the Directive but do not observe the standards laid down in the Convention or the Recommendation and use intensive farming systems prohibited in the exporting State – Quantitative restrictions on exports – Exhaustive harmonisation – Validity of the Directive

    Times 02-Apr-1998, [1998] ECR I-1251, [1998] EUECJ C-1/96
    Bailii, Bailii
    EC Treaty 34 36, Directive 91/629/EEC
    England and Wales
    Cited by:
    See AlsoCompassion in World Farming Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 27-Nov-2003
    The Directive sought to provide welfare protection for battery chickens. The applicant complained that the farming techniques which restricted diet in order to encourage fast growth would have been prevented if the respondent had properly . .
    See AlsoRegina on the Application of Compassion In World Farming Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 29-Jul-2004
    The claimants challenged regulations as to animal welfare, saying that they allowed farmers to use practices which did not protect animal welfare.
    Held: It was not unlawful to adopt a policy of not prosecuting farmers for practices which would . .

    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    European, Commercial, Animals, Agriculture

    Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563234

    Tempest (t/a Cesspool Sid) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 16 Mar 2000

    The taxpayer owned and operated vehicles for discharging cesspool waste over agricultural land. He sought to reclaim the rebate entitlement for heavy oil. It was held that the four wheeled vehicles were off-the-road vehicles even if they would be driven on roads to and from the work sites. It was not an agricultural vehicle but was entitled as an off road vehicle if it was not otherwise entitled to a rebate, if it was designed and constructed mainly for use off the roads, and if it could not exceed 25 mph under its own power.

    Times 16-Mar-2000
    Hydrocarbon Oil Duty Act 1979
    England and Wales

    Road Traffic, Transport, Agriculture

    Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.89763

    Pagkiprios organismos ageladotrofon Dimosia Ltd v Commission: ECFI 7 Dec 2015

    (Order) Application for interim measures – Publication of an application for registration of a protected designation of origin – ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency

    T-584/15, [2015] EUECJ T-584/15 – CO
    Bailii
    European

    Intellectual Property, Agriculture

    Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557026

    Mott, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency: SC 14 Feb 2018

    The Court considered the legality under the European Convention on Human Rights of licensing conditions imposed by the Environment Agency restricting certain forms of salmon-fishing in the Severn Estuary. The claimant operated a licensed putcher rank salmon fishing business.
    Held: The Agency’s appeal failed. The judge’s reasoning was correct. He had not find it necessary to categorise the measure as either expropriation or control. It was enough that it ‘eliminated at least 95% of the benefit of the right’, thus making it ‘closer to deprivation than mere control’. This was clearly relevant to the ‘fair balance’. Yet the Agency had given no consideration to the particular impact on his livelihood. The impact was exacerbated because the method chosen meant that by far the greatest impact fell on him, as compared to others whose use may have been only for leisure purposes.

    Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Briggs
    [2018] UKSC 10, [2018] 2 All ER 663, [2018] LLR 356, [2018] 1 WLR 1022, [2018] Env LR 20, [2018] WLR(D) 86, UKSC 2016/0148
    Bailii, Bailii Summray, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20171213 am Video, SC 2017 pm Video
    European Convention on Human Rights A1P1, Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, Human Rights Act 1998
    England and Wales
    Citing:
    At first InstanceMott, Regina (on The Application of) v The Environment Agency and Another Admn 13-Feb-2015
    The claimant challenged new conditions imposed on licences to operate his salmon fishery in the Severn Estuary, which operated to defeat his tenancy of the fishery.
    Held: The request for review succeeded. The decisions to impose the catch . .
    CitedMott, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Another CA 17-Jun-2016
    The applicant challenged restrictions on salmon fishing imposed by the respondent. At first instance they were held to be irrational, and the Agency appealed.
    Held: The Regulations were not irrational and that element of the appeal succeeded, . .
    CitedBack v Finland ECHR 20-Jul-2004
    The claimant was the owner of a substantial debt owed by another individual. However the value of his debt was reduced to a very small level when the debtor entered a statutory scheme for compromise of debts.
    Held: It must be open to a . .
    CitedSporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 18-Dec-1984
    Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
    An interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. This balance is . .
    CitedTrailer and Marina (Leven) Ltd, Regina (ex parte) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
    The claimant sought a declaration that the 1981 Act, as amended, interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its possession, namely a stretch of canal which had been declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, with the effect that it was unusable. . .
    CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
    Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
    The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
    CitedMellacher and Others v Austria ECHR 19-Dec-1989
    The case concerned restrictions on the rent that a property owner could charge. The restrictions were applied to existing leases. It was said that the restrictions brought into play the second paragraph of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the . .
    CitedPapamichalopoulos and Others v Greece ECHR 24-Jun-1993
    Expropriation notices, which were eventually withdrawn, constituted neither deprivation of property nor control of use, but ‘The fact that the permits fell within the ambit of neither of the second sentence of the first paragraph nor of the second . .
    CitedPosti and Rahko v Finland ECHR 24-Sep-2002
    Hudoc Two fishermen who operated under leases granted by the Finnish state complained that restrictions imposed by the government to safeguard fish stocks had failed to strike a fair balance under A1P1. The court . .
    CitedHutten-Czapska v Poland ECHR 19-Jun-2006
    Grand Chamber. The court considered the need for establishing a fair balance in cases under A1P1: ‘Not only must an interference with the right of property pursue, on the facts as well as in principle, a ‘legitimate aim’ in the ‘general interest’, . .
    CitedRe B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) SC 12-Jun-2013
    B had been removed into care at birth. The parents now appealed against a care order made with a view to B’s adoption. The Court was asked as to the situation where the risks were necessarily only anticipated, and as to appeals against a finding of . .
    CitedPindstrup Mosebrug A/S v Denmark ECHR 3-Jun-2008
    Restrictions had been imposed on the commercial exploitation of a peat bog, regarded as geologically and biologically unique.
    Held: The claim was inadmissible. The effect on the claimants was not unduly severe, having regard to the findings . .

    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Human Rights, Agriculture

    Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.604791

    Council v Commission C-73/14: ECJ 6 Oct 2015

    ECJ Judgment – Action for annulment – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea – Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing – Advisory opinion proceedings – Submission by the European Commission of a written statement on behalf of the European Union – No prior approval of the content of that statement by the Council of the European Union – Article 13(2) TEU, Article 16 TEU and Article 17(1) TEU – Article 218(9) TFEU and Article 335 TFEU – Representation of the European Union – Principles of conferral of powers and institutional balance – Principle of sincere cooperation

    ECLI:EU:C:2015:663, [2015] EUECJ C-73/14
    Bailii
    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
    European

    Transport, Agriculture

    Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553093

    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.

    Lord Menzies
    [2015] ScotCS CSIH – 39
    Bailii
    Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991

    Scotland, Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

    Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547650

    Spain v Commission: ECFI 13 Nov 2014

    ECJ Judgment – Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Sector fruits and vegetables – Citrus – Action for annulment – Confirmatory act – substantial new facts – Admissibility – Conditions marketing – Provisions concerning marking – Indications preservatives or other chemicals used in post-harvest treatment – Recommendations on standards adopted within the framework of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

    Gratsias MD (Rapporteur), P
    T-481/11, [2014] EUECJ T-481/11
    Bailii

    European, Agriculture

    Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538766

    Sheilds and Sons Partnership v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Oct 2014

    VAT: Agricultural Flat-rate Scheme – whether the Appellant’s certificate to use the scheme can lawfully be withdrawn on the basis of protection of the revenue – yes; Regulation 206(1)(i) VAT Regulations 1995 and Articles 295 to 302 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC

    [2014] UKFTT 944 (TC)
    Bailii
    England and Wales

    VAT, Agriculture

    Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537683

    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