Stanley Brunton J
[2004] EWHC 776 (QB)
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195571
CJ Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 – Proof of export – Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 – Correction of an export licence – Obvious inaccuracy – Principle of proportionality.
C-329/01, [2004] EUECJ C-329/01, [2004] ECR I-1899
Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88, Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81
European
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194041
Appeal from order confiscating fishing boats
[2002] NICA 3
Northern Ireland
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189646
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 implemented the Directive in its Code under the 1968 Act, and in the 2000 Regulations. They said that the Directive required the respondent to control compliance through criminal sanctions. The respondent had adopted a scheme of only civil enforcement.
Held: The obligations were expressed in a general fashion, which was to be taken to allow the respondent a discretion as to how the objectives could be achieved. The objectives of the Directive were not to be confused with the means of attaining them. The respondent was entitled to conclude that a criminal code might be counter-productive.
Newman J
[2003] EWHC 2850 (Admin), Times 05-Dec-2003
Council Directive 98/58/EC, Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 2, Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000
See Also – 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.
Appeal from – Regina 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.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188324
[2003] EWHC 2748 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188143
(Judgment) Action for annulment – Action for damages.
T-44/01, [2003] EUECJ T-44/01
European
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180832
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien – Austria. Fisheries – Health policy – Directive 91/493/EEC and Decision 94/356/EC – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Principle of proportionality – Limit values for the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in smoked fish products.
C-121/00, [2002] EUECJ C-121/00, (2002) ECR 1-9193
European
Cited – British American Tobacco UK Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 5-Nov-2004
The claimants challenged the validity of regulations restricting cigarette advertisements, saying that greater exceptions should have been allowed, and that the regulations infringed their commercial right of free speech.
Held: The Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177825
A corporation may prescribe for common in gross for cattle levant and couchant within the town, but not for common in gross without number
[1845] EngR 155, (1845) 1 Wms Saund 343, (1845) 85 ER 495
England and Wales
Appeal from – Mellor v Spateman (1) 1845
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.303297
ECJ Common agricultural policy – Animal health – Bovine spongiform encephalopathy – Action for damages – Regulation (EC) No 1357/96 – Additional premiums – Action for annulment – Trade association – Inadmissible.
T-149/96, [1998] EUECJ T-149/96
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173268
ECJ Agriculture – Fisheries – Aquaculture and establishment of protected marine areas – Community financial aid – Declaration of ineligibility of certain expenditure – Action for annulment – Action for damages.
[1997] EUECJ T-218/95
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173119
Lord Abernethy and Lord Allanbridge and Lord Kirkwood
[1999] ScotCS 220
See Also – Morrison-Low v The Executors of Thomas Herbert Paterson SCS 9-Feb-2012
False . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169528
The claimants were farmers, who had been made subject to orders under the Act. They had accumulated maggot waste on their land. The second defendant accepted that the waste included material which would be high risk under the Directive. The defendant had entered the claimant’s land to execute works required under the notice, and the claimant argued this interfered with their property rights under the Convention. The maggot waste which had been supplied to him had included other animal wastes.
Held: Neither the Act for the Order allowed any provision for an appeal. Was judicial review a sufficient alternative remedy? Some of the significant decisions predated the Human Rights Act, and the actual procedure adopted allowed representations to be made, and for review if necessary. The Act was compliant.
Mr Nigel Pleming QC (Sitting As A Deputy High Court Judge
[2001] EWHC Admin 1047
Animal Health Act 1981, Animal By-Products Order 1999, European Convention on Human Rights, Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27th November 1990.
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – McLellan v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council v Benfield and Another CA 16-Oct-2001
The tenant was issued with a notice to quit for unpaid rent, within the first year, during an ‘introductory tenancy.’ She sought judicial review on the basis that the reduced security of tenure infringed her human rights.
Held: Review was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167368
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Withdrawal – Interpretation and validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 1521/95 and 1576/95 – Failure to state reasons
C-228/99, [2001] EUECJ C-228/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001, [2001] ECR I-8401
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166865
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 declarations that the charges remained valid and that the new tenancies and assignments should be set aside. The tenants appealed, but failed. The admitted purpose of the transactions was to put the assets beyond the reach of the bank, and that they were at an undervalue. The Agricultural Credits Act operated therefore to crystallise the charge. As to s423, it: ‘requires a comparison to be made between two figures. For that purpose the court must arrive at a conclusion based on actual values. The evidence may, of course, disclose a range of suggested figures. But the court must ascertain from the evidence the actual value against which the consideration for the transaction must be measured. That was the approach adopted by the judge. It is correct.’
Judge LJ, Mummery LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Gazette 15-Nov-2001, Times 19-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1541, [2002] 1 BCLC 55
Insolvency Act 1986 423, Agricultural Credits Act 1928 7
England and Wales
Appeal from – National Westminster Bank Plc v Jones and Others ChD 7-Jul-2000
A transaction could be deemed to be at an undervalue and caught by the section even though it made no difference to the overall assets and even though only one rather than the generality of creditors was prejudiced by the transaction. Here, by . .
Cited – Re Thoars (Dec’d); Reid v Ramlort Ltd ChD 2003
The company claimed the benefit of an insurance policy. They had paid certain premiums and the trustee had made a declaration that it was held on trust for the company. The insured died in Scotland, intestate and insolvent.
Held: The . .
Cited – Ramlort Ltd v Michael James Meston Reid CA 8-Jul-2004
The company sought to claim under a life policy. The deceased had died in Scotland insolvent. The trustee of the policy had declared that he held it on trust for the claimant, but the defendant, the judicial factor of the estate, said the . .
Cited – 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.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166777
(Judgment) Community law did not recognise the rights of animals as fundamental. The applicant owned animals, which fell to be destroyed as part of a preventive cull to protect against the spread of foot and mouth disease. The animals would not be moved nor mix with other animals. They claimed that the ban on vaccination which left the cull as an only alternative, was made without regard to a principle of promoting the welfare of animals. The protection of animals was neither an objective of the community, nor a principle of law. The directive was not manifestly inappropriate.
ECJ Agriculture – Control of foot-and-mouth disease – Prohibition of vaccination – Principle of proportionality – Taking animal welfare into account
‘the criterion to be applied is not whether the measure adopted by the legislature was the only one or the best one possible but whether it was manifestly inappropriate’
Times 19-Jul-2001, [2001] EUECJ C-189/01, C-189/01, [2001] ECR I-5689, ECLI:EU:C:2001:420
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162815
ECJ Articles 9(1), 10(1) and 20(2) to (6) of Regulation No 2730/79 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version resulting from Regulation No 568/85, must be interpreted as meaning that a Community exporter can forfeit his right to payment of a non-differentiated export refund if (a) the product in respect of which the export refund was paid, and which is sold to a purchaser established in a non-member country, is, immediately after its release for home use in that non-member country, transported back to the Community under the external Community transit procedure and is there released for home use on payment of import duties, without any infringement being established and (b) that operation constitutes an abuse on the part of that Community exporter. A finding that there is an abuse presupposes an intention on the part of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the conditions for obtaining it. Evidence of this must be placed before the national court in accordance with the rules of national law, for instance by establishing that there was collusion between that exporter and the importer of the goods into the non-member country. The fact that, before being re-imported into the Community, the product was sold by the purchaser established in the non-member country concerned to an undertaking also established in that country with which he has personal and commercial links is one of the facts which can be taken into account by the national court when ascertaining whether the conditions giving rise to an obligation to repay refunds are fulfilled.
The exporter was refused a rebate of duty to which he was entitled on the face of the relevant Commission Regulation upon the export of his goods, because he had abused the law by claiming it in respect of goods which had been exported to a third country only to be at once re-imported into the country of origin. The court held at para 59 that:
‘a finding that there has been an abuse presupposes an intention on the part of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the conditions for obtaining it.’
The essential reason why the trading scheme failed was that the choice of a circular supply route did not involve a choice between different methods of achieving the trader’s commercial purpose. It had no commercial purpose other than the avoidance of tax.
G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, P
C-110/99, [2000] ECR I-11569, [2000] EUECJ C-110/99
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Debenhams Retail Plc CA 18-Jul-2005
The store introduced a system whereby when a customer paid by credit card, the charges made to them for card handling were expressed as a separate amount on the receipt. The store then said that VAT was payable only on the net amount allocated to . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Debenhams Retail Plc CA 18-Jul-2005
The store introduced a system whereby when a customer paid by credit card, the charges made to them for card handling were expressed as a separate amount on the receipt. The store then said that VAT was payable only on the net amount allocated to . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Pendragon Plc and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
‘This appeal is about an elaborate scheme designed and marketed by KPMG relating to demonstrator cars used by retail distributors for test drives and other internal purposes. In the ordinary course, a car distributor will buy new cars for use as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162629
(Judgment) Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Identification of waters affected by pollution – Designation of vulnerable zones – Criteria – Validity in the light of the polluter pays principle, the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, the principle of proportionality and the right to property
C-293/97, [1999] EUECJ C-293/97
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162206
(Judgment) Wine – New planting of vines – Table grapes
C-308/97, [1998] EUECJ C-308/97, [1998] ECR I-7685
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162216
Judgment – Appeal – Aquaculture – Regulations (EEC) No bones 4028/86 and 1116/88 – Community financial aid – Reduction of aid
[1999] EUECJ C-10/98P
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162310
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division – United Kingdom. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Beef – Export refunds -Beef of British origin repatriated to the United Kingdom as a result of the announcements and decisions made in relation to ‘mad cow disease’ – Force majeure. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Refunds paid in advance – Goods exported and repatriated, on account of force majeure, to the Member State of export – Repayment of refunds paid in advance – Obligation incumbent on the exporter – Beef from the United Kingdom hit by the export ban imposed by Decision 96/239 – Regulation No 3665/87 not permitting exporters to retain refunds paid in advance – Breach of the principles of force majeure, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity – None – Validity of Regulation No 773/96 (Council Regulation No 565/80; Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 5(1), 23 and 33, and Commission Regulation No 773/96; Commission Decision 96/239).
Articles 23 and 33 of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version thereof resulting from Regulation No 1615/90, must be interpreted as meaning that where, as a result of, in particular, force majeure, goods do not reach their country of destination but are repatriated to the Member State of export, the exporter is obliged to repay any export refunds paid in advance. In such a situation, the formalities for release of the product for consumption in the country of destination have not been completed, so that it cannot be regarded, for the purposes of payment of the differentiated refund, as having been imported within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 3665/87. By prohibiting, in particular, exporters of beef from the United Kingdom from retaining all or part of any export refunds paid in advance in circumstances where (1 exports of beef from the United Kingdom to third countries have been prohibited by Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, (2 bans on the importation of beef from the United Kingdom have also been imposed by a number of third countries, (3 exporters of beef were in the process of carrying goods to third countries on the date on which Decision 96/239 was adopted, (4 those exporters were forced to repatriate the beef to the United Kingdom, (5 the exporters had received, in accordance with Regulation No 565/80 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products and Regulation No 3665/87, advance payments of export refunds in respect of the export transactions in issue, and (6 the exporters suffered loss as a result of their inability to sell their beef on the export markets in question, Regulation No 3665/87 does not contravene the general principles of Community law, in particular the principles of force majeure, the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity. Furthermore, and since none of those principles require exporters, in the circumstances described, to be authorised to retain all or part of any refunds, the fact that Regulation No 773/96 laying down special measures derogating from Regulations No 3665/87, No 3719/88 and No 1964/82 in the beef and veal sector does not provide for such retention does not render it invalid
C-263/97, [1997] Eu LR 195, [1998] EUECJ C-263/97
Reference from – Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex parte First City Trading Limited and Others Admn 26-Mar-1997
. .
See Also – Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and Another Ex Parte First City trading Etc QBD 20-Dec-1996
EU law principles do not apply in domestic law unless implementing EU law. Laws J said that: ‘Wednesbury and European review are two different models – one looser, one tighter -of the same juridical concept, which is the imposition of compulsory . .
Cited – Devenish Nutrition Ltd and others v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and others ChD 19-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the losses it had suffered as a result of price fixing by the defendant companies in the vitamin market. The European Commission had already fined the defendant for its involvement.
Held: In an action for breach . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162183
(Judgment) Additional levy on milk – Specific reference quantity – Final award – Conditions
C-374/96, [1998] EUECJ C-374/96
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161992
(Judgment) Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Production refunds – System of securities – Time-limits – Primary requirement – Subordinate requirement
C-287/96, [1998] EUECJ C-287/96
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161936
(Judgment) In the context of intervention measures in the beef and veal sector, and in particular of the system of buying-in by tendering procedures, Article 9(1) of Regulation No 859/89 provides that tenderers must undertake to comply with all the relevant provisions and Article 9(2) that interested parties may submit one tender only per category in response to each invitation to tender. Since the need to ensure legal certainty means that rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them, the wording of Article 9(2) cannot provide any support for the interpretation that, on account of the difference in meaning between the words `interested party’ and `tenderers’, the latter may submit one tender only in response to an invitation to tender where they are part of a single group. Such an interpretation would thus be tantamount to applying retroactively Article 11 of Regulation No 2456/93, which introduces into the Community legislation provisions on the relationship between tenderers. That being the case, although the rule that tenders must be independent, an essential requirement for the validity and effectiveness of any tender procedure, which underlies Articles 9(6) (confidentiality of tenders), 12(2) (prohibition on the transfer of rights and obligations arising from the tender procedure), 9(4)(c) (tenderers’ obligation to lodge a security) and 15 (tenderers’ obligation to receive payment personally) of Regulation No 859/89 and Article 6(6) of Regulation No 805/68 (equality of access for all persons concerned), does not prevent several companies belonging to one group from taking part at the same time in one tender procedure, it does preclude those same companies from agreeing on the terms and conditions of the tenders which they each submit, if the tender procedure is not to be distorted.
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 729/70, which constitutes a specific expression in the agricultural area of the obligations imposed on Member States by Article 5 of the Treaty, defines the principles according to which the Community and the Member States must ensure the implementation of Community decisions on agricultural intervention financed by the EAGGF and combat fraud and irregularities in relation to those operations. It imposes on the Member States the general obligation to take the measures necessary to satisfy themselves that the transactions financed by the EAGGF are actually carried out and are executed correctly, even if the specific Community act does not expressly provide for the adoption of particular supervisory measures, particularly when there is evidence such as to give rise to serious suspicions that a prohibition laid down by the Community act in question has been circumvented.
Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 729/70 permit the Commission to charge to the EAGGF only sums paid in accordance with the rules laid down in the various sectors of agricultural production, leaving the Member States to bear the burden of any other sum paid, and in particular any amounts which the national authorities wrongly believed themselves authorised to pay in the context of the common organisation of the markets. Although it is therefore for the Commission to prove an infringement of the Community rules, the Member State concerned must demonstrate that the Commission committed an error as to the financial consequences to be attributed to it. Where it has established that a Member State infringed several Community rules in the field of agriculture and that harm was probably caused to the Community budget, the Commission cannot be required to do more, since it cannot carry out systematic checks and analysis of the current state of a given market depends on information gathered by the Member States.
The extent of the obligation to state reasons, laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty, depends on the nature of the measure in question and on the context in which it was adopted. A decision concerning the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF by which the charging to the EAGGF of part of the expenditure declared is refused does not require detailed reasons if the government concerned was closely involved in the process by which the decision came about and is therefore aware of the reason for which the Commission considers that it must not charge the sums in dispute to the EAGGF.
[1998] EUECJ C-209/96
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161895
ECJ Milk – Additional levy scheme – Additional reference quantity – Temporary withdrawal – Conversion into a definitive reduction – Loss of compensation – General principles of law and fundamental rights
C-186/96, [1998] EUECJ C-186/96
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161880
ECJ Order – 1. It is open to the Court hearing an application for interim relief to order the suspension of the operation of an act, or other interim measures, if it is established that such an order is justified, prima facie, in fact and in law and that it is urgent in so far as it must, in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the applicant’ s interests, be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. The Court is also to balance the interests at stake. Suspension and other measures granted under Article 186 of the Treaty must, moreover, be provisional inasmuch as they must not prejudge the points of law or fact in issue or neutralize in advance the effects of the decision subsequently to be given in the main action.
In the context of that overall examination, the Court hearing the application enjoys a broad discretion and is free to determine, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which those various conditions are to be examined, there being no rule of Community law imposing a preestablished scheme of analysis by reference to which the need to order interim measures must be assessed.
2. The urgency of an interim measure must be considered by reference to whether it is necessary to make a provisional ruling in order to avoid the occurrence of serious and irreparable harm as a result of immediate application of the measure contested in the main action. As regards the nature of the harm which may be invoked, it must be noted that the Member States are responsible for those interests, in particular of an economic and social nature, which are regarded as general interests at national level and are thereby entitled to defend such interests before the courts. They may therefore invoke damage affecting a whole sector of their economy, in particular when the contested Community measure may entail unfavourable repercussions on the level of employment and the cost of living.
3. Where an applicant seeking suspension of operation of a measure invokes the risk of its suffering serious and irreparable harm, the Court hearing the application must determine, when balancing the interests at stake, whether the possible annulment of the contested decision by the Court seised of the main action would allow the situation brought about by its immediate implementation to be reversed and, conversely, whether suspension of the operation of that decision would be such as to prevent its being fully effective in the event of the main application being dismissed.
4. An application by the United Kingdom for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy or even of part of it, or for interim measures qualifying its application, cannot be granted. Whilst some of the pleas in law put forward by the Member State contesting the lawfulness of that decision cannot be wholly ruled out at the stage of examination of the interim application, the Commission has none the less presented serious arguments as to the lawfulness of its decision as a whole. Furthermore, the balancing of the interests at stake inevitably leads to recognition that the protection of public health against a fatal risk, which can in no way be ruled out in the present state of scientific knowledge, must take precedence over the economic and social damage which the Member State may invoke as being likely to result from the application of the said decision, even if that damage is not easily reparable.
Europa In order for an act of the Council or the Commission to form the subject-matter of an action for annulment, it must be intended to have legal effects. That is not the position in the case of an act of the Commission which reflects its intention, or that of one of its departments, to follow a particular line of conduct or which merely confirms a previous act in such a way that annulment of the confirmatory act would follow from annulment of the previous act.
In adopting Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which imposes, on a temporary basis, a total ban on exports of bovine animals, bovine meat and derived products from the territory of the United Kingdom to the other Member States and to third countries, the Commission acted within the framework of the powers conferred on it by Directives 90/425 and 89/662 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade. First, the conditions governing the adoption of safeguard measures in accordance with those two directives were fulfilled, particularly since the power to adopt such measures is justified by the fact that a zoonosis, disease or other cause is likely to constitute a serious hazard. Second, having regard, in particular, to the fact that the directives are drafted in very wide terms, without imposing any restrictions as to the temporal or territorial scope of the measures concerned, it does not appear that the Commission clearly exceeded the bounds of its broad discretion in seeking to contain the disease within the territory of the United Kingdom by banning exports from that territory to other Member States and to third countries. Lastly, the decision is not vitiated by misuse of powers, since the Commission was prompted to act by concerns as to the risk of transmissibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to humans, after examining the measures adopted by the United Kingdom and consulting the Scientific Veterinary Committee and the Standing Veterinary Committee, its exclusive or main purpose not being to protect economic interests rather than health.
Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which imposes, on a temporary basis, a total ban on exports of bovine animals, bovine meat and derived products from the territory of the United Kingdom to the other Member States and to third countries, fulfils the requirement to provide a statement of reasons, does not breach the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination or legal certainty and is in accordance with the objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39(1) of the Treaty. As regards, more particularly, the principle of proportionality, it was open to the Commission, in view of the great uncertainty as to the risks posed by the animals and products concerned, to take the protective measures in issue without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks became fully apparent. As regards the principle of non-discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, the fact that, at the time of adoption of the decision, almost all the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Europe were recorded in the United Kingdom meant that the situation in that Member State could not be regarded as comparable with that in the other Member States.
Article 43 of the Treaty is the appropriate legal basis for any legislation concerning the production and marketing of agricultural products listed in Annex II to the Treaty which contributes to the achievement of one or more of the objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39 of the Treaty. In that connection, and having regard to the importance of the role played by the free movement of animals, animal products and products of animal origin in achieving those objectives, Article 43 constituted the appropriate legal basis for the adoption of Directives 90/425 and 89/662 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade, even though those directives authorise the Commission incidentally to adopt safeguard measures covering `products of animal origin’, `products derived from those products’ and `products derived’ from animals which are not included in Annex II to the Treaty.
Times 06-May-1998, C-180/96, [1996] EUECJ C-180/96R
See Also – United Kingdom v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-3903) (Order) ECJ 12-Jul-1996
. .
Cited – United Kingdom v Commission ECJ 5-May-1998
Agriculture – Animal health – Emergency measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy – ‘Mad cow disease’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161875
ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfil obligations – Council Directives 90/219/EEC and 90/220/EEC – Genetically modified organisms. A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.
C-312/95, [1996] EUECJ C-312/95
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161691
ECJ 1 Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Beef and veal – Import rules – Community tariff quotas – Conditions of eligibility for operators other than traditional importers – Export thresholds higher than those required for the two preceding quotas – Misuse of powers – None – Principle of proportionality – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Duty to state reasons – Breach – None (Council Regulation No 130/94; Commission Regulation No 214/94, Art. 1(2))
2 Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Discrimination between producers or consumers – Import rules governing eligibility for the Community tariff quota for certain kinds of frozen beef – Possibility for traditional importers to cumulate rights of access to the quota in the case of company mergers – Other operators not permitted to do so – No discrimination (EC Treaty, Art. 40(3); Commission Regulation No 214/94, Art. 2(2))
3 Since the purpose of Regulation No 130/94 opening a Community tariff quota for certain kinds of frozen beef is to guarantee equal and continuing access to the quota for all interested operators within the Community, the Commission did not exceed the powers conferred on it by that regulation when it provided in Article 1(2) of Regulation No 214/94 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 130/94 that the part of the quota available to operators other than traditional importers was to be restricted to applicants who could furnish proof of having exported to third countries during the reference period a minimum quantity of beef greater than that required for the two preceding quotas. Although the criteria of eligibility for the quota which the Commission was called upon to lay down were required to be such as to guarantee equal and continuing access only for operators who had imported or exported significant amounts, Regulation No 130/94 did not require it to link export thresholds directly to developments in trade with third countries. Furthermore, the criteria laid down by the Commission rightly deter the proliferation of `paper companies’ reflecting the artificial fragmentation by certain traders of their economic structure, which is liable to disrupt the scheme because it increases the number of applications and thereby reduces the quantities available for genuine small operators, who thus risk being excluded from the quota altogether. The raising of the export thresholds by the Commission did not breach the principle of proportionality, either, because in the light of the purpose of the scheme it was reasonable that the effect of the change be to deprive of the right to participate in the quota a large number of undertakings created artificially for the sole purpose of obtaining a larger share of the quota, there being no proof that the increase prevented a large number of genuinely small operators from obtaining a share of the quota. Likewise, it did not breach the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations because any prudent and diligent trader must know that the export thresholds may be altered whenever a new annual quota is adopted, and the premature announcement of the new eligibility criteria would encourage the creation of `paper companies’ precisely to meet the new thresholds, thus enabling large groups to obtain maximum advantage from the quota. Finally, the duty to state reasons for the increase was complied with, since the preambles to Regulations No 130/94 and No 214/94 state clearly the considerations which led the Commission to alter the eligibility criteria for operators other than traditional importers. 4 The fact that Article 2(2) of Regulation No 214/94 laying down detailed rules for the application of the import rules opening a Community tariff quota for certain kinds of frozen beef deprives companies resulting from mergers who wish to obtain a share of the quota for non-traditional operators of the possibility of cumulating past performance obtained by each of them, a possibility which is available to traditional importers, does not constitute discrimination prohibited by Article 40(3) of the Treaty. The way in which the quota for traditional importers is distributed is not comparable to the way in which the quota reserved for other operators is distributed. The first is allocated among eligible operators in proportion to the imports achieved by each of them, whereas the second is allocated in proportion not to imports or exports, but to the quantities applied for, subject to a maximum per application. Consequently, the cumulation of rights to a share in the traditional quota is not intended to determine the eligibility for the quota of companies arising from mergers which would not otherwise be eligible, but to permit them to cumulate quota shares already held separately by the undertakings involved in the merger.
C-241/95, [1996] EUECJ C-241/95
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161630
(Judgment) 1. When it adopted Regulation No 1932/93 establishing protective measures as regards the import of sour cherries, the Commission was not required to specify therein the time-limit within which any Member State might refer the protective measures adopted to the Council. Council Decision 87/373 laying down the procedures for the exercise of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission, Article 3 of which provides for determination of such a time-limit, applies, according to the second and third recitals in its preamble, only to the powers conferred after its entry into force and cannot therefore affect the validity of implementing measures adopted on the basis of implementing powers conferred on the Commission before it entered into force. Moreover, when the Council decides to use the procedure provided for in Article 3 of that decision, the time-limit within which any Member State may refer to it the decision adopted by the Commission must be indicated in the act by which the Council conferred on the Commission the power to adopt protective measures and not in such decisions as the Commission might adopt on the basis of that power.
2. The protective measures in respect of imports of sour cherries introduced in the fruit and vegetable sector by Regulation No 1932/93 did not contravene the principle of proportionality. Those measures, which were chosen in preference to more inhibitive measures, in particular measures restricting the volume of imports, were suited to the attainment of the objective pursued, namely to arrest the fall in product prices on the Community market and were adopted at a time when a less restrictive system, involving import licences, had proved insufficient.
Neither did they contravene the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, since traders could not legitimately expect that an existing situation which was capable of being altered by decisions taken by the Community institutions would be maintained, particularly in view of the fact that, shortly before the adoption of that regulation, the Commission had established a system of import licences prompted by unfavourable market developments.
Finally, those measures cannot be seen as being in breach of the interim trade agreements concluded by the European Economic Community and the European Coal and Steel Community with the Republic of Poland, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Republic of Hungary, since, although Article 15 of each of those agreements requires each of the parties to enter into consultations where either of them has adopted protective measures concerning trade in agricultural products, that provision is effective only between the contracting parties and provides merely for a formal step to be taken after the adoption of protective measures. It cannot therefore be effectively relied on to contest the validity of the protective measures themselves.
C-64/95, [1996] EUECJ C-64/95
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161530
(Judgment) 1. A Member State cannot rely on practical difficulties related, for example, to deficiencies in its statistical system, in order to justify its failure to adopt appropriate control measures with regard to compliance with fishing quotas. On the contrary, it is for the Member States responsible for implementing Community regulations in the fishery products sector to overcome those difficulties by taking appropriate measures.
In particular, under Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities, Member States must adopt binding measures to prohibit on a provisional basis all fishing activity even before quotas are exhausted when, in the absence of such prohibition, the tonnage caught would be likely to exceed those quotas.
2. Under Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities, where the competent authorities of a Member State observe that the rules concerning fishery conservation and control are not being complied with, they are required to take penal or administrative action. If the competent authorities of a Member State could systematically refrain from taking action against the persons responsible for such infringements, both the conservation and management of fishery resources and the uniform application of the common fisheries policy would be jeopardized. Consequently, when the Commission has fixed a date for prohibiting a type of fishing, a Member State is required to take penal or administrative action against persons responsible for continuing the fishing activities in question and related activities covered by the Community rules. Mere apprehension of internal difficulties, in the form of serious socio-economic problems, cannot justify a failure to apply the rules in question.
C-52/95, [1995] EUECJ C-52/95
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161523
(Order) Agriculture – Financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultry meat – Action for annulment of a directive – Natural or legal persons – Acts concerning them directly and individually – Appeal clearly unfounded.
C-10/95, [1995] EUECJ C-10/95P
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161495
(Judgment) Common organization of the market in beef and veal – Conditions for intervention.
C-296/93, [1996] EUECJ C-296/93
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161137
ECJ (Judgment) 1. Under the additional milk levy scheme introduced by Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68, as amended by Regulation No 856/84, an owner who during the reference year acquired the whole or part of a holding by sale, lease or inheritance and who resumed milk production at the time when that scheme entered into force, may receive a reference quantity in respect of the quantity of milk produced by the previous farmer in the course of part of the reference year where the Member State concerned, in the exercise of the power conferred by Article 7(1) of Regulation No 857/84 adopting general rules for the application of the said levy, as amended by Regulation No 590/85 and subparagraph 3 of Article 5 of Regulation No 1371/84 laying down detailed rules for the application of the levy, has decided to allocate a reference quantity to producers who find themselves in such circumstances.
2. Articles 3, 3a, 4 and 4a of Regulation No 857/84, as amended, and Article 3 of Regulation No 1371/84 contain an exhaustive list of the special situations in which reference quantities or individual quantities may be allocated and set out precise rules concerning the determination of those quantities. Since no provision of the regulations makes it possible for an owner and new producer who commenced his milk deliveries on the date of entry into force of the additional levy scheme, and whose reference quantity is calculated on the basis of the deliveries made by the previous farmer in the course of only part of the reference year before he ceased his activities, to have account taken, as a result of that fact, of a reference year different from that chosen by the Member State concerned, such taking into account is excluded, even where the deliveries during the reference year are not representative of the production capacity of the holding during that year.
C-189/92, [1994] EUECJ C-189/92
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160933
C-321/91, [1993] EUECJ C-321/91
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160829
ECJ (Judgment) The expression ‘areas used for milk production’ in Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1371/84 and in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1546/88, which in the context of the scheme imposing a levy on milk relate to the transfer of reference quantities exempt from the levy when one or more parts of a holding are transferred, must be interpreted as also comprising the yard, buildings and road areas of the holding, provided that they contribute directly or indirectly to the milk production of the holding.
[1992] ECR I-6895, [1992] EUECJ C-79/91
European
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160673
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.’
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, Dunedin, Shaw, and Robson
[1911] UKHL 638
England and Wales
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619210
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)
[1986] EUECJ C-133/84
European
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133889
Non-contractual liability; alteration of the rate of exchange applicable to the sugar market.
C-12/79, [1979] EUECJ C-12/79
European
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132815
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
Times 06-Jun-1996, [1996] ECR 1 2553, C-5/94, [1997] QB 139, [1996] EUECJ C-5/94
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Oakley 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.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87360
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.
Times 14-Jul-1994, Ind Summary 01-Aug-1994, C-432/92, [1994] ECR I-3087, [1994] EUECJ C-432/92
European
See also – Ramondin 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 . .
Cited – Football 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.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87354
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.
Gazette 21-Apr-1999, Times 13-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 252
Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87363
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.
Times 12-May-1998, Gazette 28-May-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 458
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84341
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
Gazette 09-Sep-1998, C-132/95, Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 14/98, [1998] EUECJ C-132/95
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82514
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.
Gazette 11-May-2000
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 179(2)
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78536
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.
[1698] EngR 14, (1698) Freem KB 273, (1698) 89 ER 195 (B)
England and Wales
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.384401
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.
[1863] EngR 949, (1863) 4 B and S 585, (1863) 122 ER 579
England and Wales
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.283604
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.
[1854] EngR 424, (1854) 3 El and Bl 563, (1854) 118 ER 1253
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.293281
Tenant farmer continuing business for two years after payment to land-owner on surrender of lease lost relief for business retirement.
Gazette 26-Feb-1998, Times 11-Feb-1998
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78245
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.
Peter Gibson LJ, Mance LJ, Wilson J
Times 02-Dec-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
England and Wales
Cited – Regina 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.
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80966
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.
(1826) 5 B and C 875, [1826] EngR 601, (1826) 108 ER 325
England and Wales
Applied – The 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 – Crown 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.
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269750
Income Tax, Schedule D – Deduction – Expenses – Timber merchant – Payments for right to fell and take standing timber.
[1957] UKHL TC – 37 – 188
England and Wales
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.560135
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.
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
Times 19-Dec-2001, Case C-1/00
European
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.167073
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 . .
C-164/97
European
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.162111
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.
Times 16-Feb-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87355
EC rules for milk levies do not require compensation for outgoing tenants.
Times 11-May-1994
European
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87362
UK regulations on Sheep and Suckler Cow premiums do not comply with European Community Law.
Ind Summary 25-Sep-1995
Sheep Annual Premium & Suckler Cow Premium Quotas Regulations
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87357
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
ECLI:EU:C:2018:565, C-540/16, [2018] EUECJ C-540/16
European
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620047
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.
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Mersey
47 SLR 536, [1910] UKHL 2, 1910 1 SLT 326, 1910 SC (HL) 47, [1910] AC 455, [1910] UKHL 536
Scotland
At SCS – Stewart v Williamson SCS 13-Jul-1909
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619791
Free Movement of Goods – Quantitative Restrictions – Protection of Pigs – Judgment
C-169/17, [2018] EUECJ C-169/17
European
Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618048
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.
Times 24-Sep-1998
Fish Health Regulations 1992 (1992 No 3300)
Scotland
Appeal from – Reclaiming 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.
Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.78483
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).
C-4/68
Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131867
A Cattle Breed Society was not obliged by the Directive to admit and register pure bred cattle living in Ireland.
Times 19-Jul-1995, Ind Summary 11-Sep-1995
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86843
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.
Kennedy LJ and Jackson
Times 12-Oct-2000, Gazette 03-Aug-2000, [2001] EHLR 5
Applied – Secretary 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 . .
Cited – Department 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.
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83488
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.
Times 22-Aug-2000
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 21(1)
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82819
Whether a garden centre was an agricultural holding was a question of fact and degree.
Times 06-Oct-1995
Scotland
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79144
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
ECLI: EU: C: 2018: 237, [2018] EUECJ C-4/17P – O
European
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608634
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
T-462/16, [2018] EUECJ T-462/16
European
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606021
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
ECLI:EU:C:2018:177, [2018] EUECJ C-244/16P
European
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606011
Placing On The Market of Plant Protection Products – Judgment
C-384/16, [2018] EUECJ C-384/16P
European
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606006
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.
May DBE J
[2018] EWHC 378 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 148
Wildlife Conservation Act 1981 1
England and Wales
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605889
Lang DBE J
[2018] EWHC 226 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604760
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.
[2018] EWHC 106 (Ch)
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
England and Wales
Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604202
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
ECLI:EU:C:2017:991, [2017] EUECJ C-393/16
European
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.602076
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
ECLI:EU:C:2017:1011, [2017] EUECJ C-516/16
European
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.602084
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’
C-268/16, [2017] EUECJ C-268/16P
European
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.602069
Judgment
C-227/16, [2017] EUECJ C-227/16
European
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599667
Judgment
C-671/15, [2017] EUECJ C-671/15
European
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599666
Control and Reduction of Sea Lice On Fish Farms
[2017] ScotIC 142 – 2017
Scotland
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595847
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
C-183/16, [2017] EUECJ C-183/16
European
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595419
(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
ECLI:EU:T:2017:639, [2017] EUECJ T-261/16
European
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595407
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
C-625/15, [2017] EUECJ C-625/15
European
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588298
(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
ECLI:EU:C:2017:458, [2017] EUECJ C-422/16
European
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588304
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
C-293/16, [2017] EUECJ C-293/16
European
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588299
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
[2017] UKUT 237 (LC)
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
England and Wales
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.587783
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
T-425/15, [2017] EUECJ T-425/15, ECLI:EU:T:2017:305, [2021] EUECJ T-425/15DEPII_CO
European
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584349
(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
ECLI:EU:C:2017:381, [2017] EUECJ C-337/16
European
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584340
(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
[2017] EUECJ C-338/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:382
European
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584341
Agriculture and Fisheries Agriculture and Fisheries – Order
C-176/16, [2017] EUECJ C-176/16 – CO
European
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581780
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
T-28/16, [2017] EUECJ T-28/16, ECLI:EU:T:2017:242
European
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581712
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
T-112/15, [2017] EUECJ T-112/15
European
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581704
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
ECLI:EU:C:2017:244, [2017] EUECJ C-315/16
European
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581706
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
[2008] EUECJ C-207/06
Regulation (EC) No 615/98, Directive 91/628/EEC
European
Opinion – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581323
(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
ECLI:EU:T:2017:230, [2017] EUECJ T-501/15
European
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581307
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.
[1789] UKHL 3 – Paton – 119
Scotland
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580994
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
ECLI:EU:C:2017:191, [2017] EUECJ C-105/16
European
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580716
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)
[2009] EUECJ C-505/07
European
Opinion – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578899
