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
ECLI:EU:T:2017:86, [2017] EUECJ T-145/15
European
Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575276
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
ECLI:EU:C:2017:105, [2017] EUECJ C-585/15
Regulation (EC) No 2267/200, Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001
European
Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573939
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
ECLI:EU:C:2017:55, [2017] EUECJ C-373/15
European
Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573807
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
ECLI:EU:C:2017:42, [2017] EUECJ C-506/15
European
Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573818
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
[2017] EUECJ C-128/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:3
European
Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573266
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
[1984] EUECJ C-50/84R
England and Wales
See Also – Bensider v Commission ECJ 27-Nov-1984
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573239
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:
Opinion – Grund 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
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
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
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:
Cited – Stait 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 . .
Cited – Schalit 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 . .
Cited – Freeman v Hambrook 1947
. .
Cited – Thompson 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 . .
Cited – Lever 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. . .
Cited – Smith 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 . .
Cited – Divall 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 . .
Cited – Renshaw v Magnet Properties South East LLP 2008
(Central London County Court) . .
Cited – Lankester 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. . .
Distinguished – Scribes 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
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
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
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:
Cited – Cowen 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 from – Taylor 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
Arbitration claim arising out of an arbitration award which determined the rent payable in relation to an agricultural holding
Morgan J
[2013] EWHC 1101 (Ch)
Bailii
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
England and Wales
Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.491842
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
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:
Opinion – Roquette Freres v Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Peche et de la Ruralite ECJ 26-Oct-2006
ECJ Entitlement of individuals to rely on the unlawfulness of Community regulations before national courts – Good reason to doubt the admissibility of actions brought by individuals for the annulment of such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Agriculture, European
Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565995
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
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
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
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 Also – Compassion 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 Also – 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.
European, Commercial, Animals, Agriculture
Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563234
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
(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
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 Instance – Mott, 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 . .
Cited – Mott, 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, . .
Cited – Back 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 . .
Cited – Sporrong 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 . .
Cited – Trailer 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. . .
Cited – AXA 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 . .
Cited – Mellacher 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 . .
Cited – Papamichalopoulos 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 . .
Cited – Posti 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 . .
Cited – Hutten-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’, . .
Cited – Re 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 . .
Cited – Pindstrup 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
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
If corns are arrested, and the arrester refuse to give permission to stack them on the ground, although caution to make them furthcoming be offered; the owner may intromit at pleasure, without breach of arrestment.
[1518] Mor 784
Bailii
Scotland, Insolvency, Agriculture
Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543971
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
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
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:
Cited – Malcolmson 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 . .
Cited – The 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 ChD – Loose 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 CA – Lynn 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
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
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 to – Antonio 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 from – Antonio 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
ECJ Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Aid in the fruit and vegetable sector – Actions for annulment – Whether directly concerned – Admissibility – Processed fruit and vegetables – Operational funds and operational programmes – Funding of ‘[non-]genuine processing activities
T-454/10, [2013] EUECJ T-454/10
Bailii
European
Agriculture
Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.510303
ECJ Common agricultural policy Direct support schemes Regulation (EC) No 1782/ 2003 Article 5 and Annex IV Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental condition Maintenance of rights of way Implementation by a Member State Transfer of powers to regional authorities of a Member State Discrimination contrary to Community law
The Court considered a Memorandum of Understanding between the UK government and the Scottish Government assigning to the devolved administration responsibility for the implementation of Community law concerning the common agricultural policy. The relevant EC Regulation empowered Member States to set minimum standards of compliance at national or regional level. Mr Horvath complained that regulations requiring the maintenance by landowners of public rights of way over agricultural land infringed the Community law principle of equality because equivalent obligations had not been imposed by the devolved administration in Scotland. The Advocate-General, in her Opinion, had advised that differences in the way that Community obligations were implemented by different devolved administrations could not be regarded as discriminatory because they ‘cannot be attributed to the conduct of the same public authority’
Held: The Grand Chamber reached the same conclusion, but on a broader basis, namely that such differences were inherent in the distribution of responsibility for implementing Community law among distinct territorial units of government within a Member State. They were therefore no more discriminatory than differences in the way that EU law was implemented by different Member States:
‘As a preliminary point, it should be pointed out that, in conferring on Member States the responsibility of defining minimum GAEC requirements, the Community legislature gives them the possibility of taking into account the regional differences which exist on their territory.
It should be recalled that, when provisions of the Treaty or of regulations confer power or impose obligations upon the States for the purposes of the implementation of Community law, the question of how the exercise of such powers and the fulfilment of such obligations may be entrusted by Member States to specific national bodies is solely a matter for the constitutional system of each State (Joined Cases 51/71 to 54/71 International Fruit Co and Others [1971] ECR 1107, para 4).
Thus, it is settled case-law that each Member State is free to allocate powers internally and to implement Community acts which are not directly applicable by means of measures adopted by regional or local authorities, provided that that allocation of powers enables the Community legal measures in question to be implemented correctly (Case C-156/91 Hansa Fleisch Ernst Mundt [1992] ECR I-5567, para 23).
The Court has, in addition, held that, where a regulation empowers a Member State to take implementing measures, the detailed rules for the exercise of that power are governed by the public law of the Member State in question (see (Case 230/78) Eridania-Zuccherifici nazionali and Societa italiana per l’industria degli zuccheri [1979] ECR 2749, para 34, and Case C-313/99 Mulligan and Others [2002] ECR I-5719, para 48).
. . It must nevertheless be examined whether, in those circumstances, the mere fact that the rules establishing GAEC laid down by the regional authorities of the same Member State differ constitutes discrimination contrary to Community law.
. . Where, as in the main proceedings, it is the devolved administrations of a Member State which have the power to define the GAEC minimum requirements within the meaning of article 5 of and Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003, divergences between the measures provided for by the various administrations cannot, alone, constitute discrimination. Those measures must, as is clear from para 50 of this judgment, be compatible with the obligations on the Member State in question which stem from that regulation.
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that, where the constitutional system of a Member State provides that devolved administrations are to have legislative competence, the mere adoption by those administrations of different GAEC standards under article 5 of and Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003 does not constitute discrimination contrary to Community law.’
V. Skouris, P
ECLI:EU:C:2009:458, [2009] 30 EG 66, [2009] ECR I-6355, [2009] EUECJ C-428/07
Bailii
egulation (EC) No 1782/ 2003
Citing:
Opinion – Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ECJ 3-Feb-2009
ECJ (Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (United Kingdom).
‘where the constitutional system of a member state provides that devolved . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Agriculture, Constitutional
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.563286
The fact alone of being prepared to take a licence of land would not defeat an application for adverse possession, but a request for a licence would be relevant. The adverse possession commenced from the time when the licence expired, given that a sufficient animus was then established. The reference in the section to the taking of action did not apply to an application to warn off the cautions made to the Land Registry which was not a court, and the application was not an application to recover land. Since the Grahams enjoyed factual possession of the land from January 1984, and adverse possession took effect from September 1984, the applicant company’s title was extinguished pursuant to the 1980 Act, and the Grahams were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the land. ‘[The Grahams] sought rights to graze or cut grass on the land after the summer of 1984, and were quite prepared to pay. When Pye failed to respond they did what any other farmer in their position would have done: they continued to farm the land. They were not at fault. But the result of Pye’s inaction was that they enjoyed the full use of the land without payment for 12 years. As if that were not gain enough, they are then rewarded by obtaining title to this considerable area of valuable land without any obligation to compensate the former owner in any way at all. In the case of unregistered land, and in the days before registration became the norm, such a result could no doubt be justified as avoiding protracted uncertainty where the title to land lay. But where land is registered it is difficult to see any justification for a legal rule which compels such an apparently unjust result, and even harder to see why the party gaining title should not be required to pay some compensation at least to the party losing it. It is reassuring to learn that the Land Registration Act 2002 has addressed the risk that a registered owner may lose his title through inadvertence. But the main provisions of that Act have not yet been brought into effect, and even if they had it would not assist Pye, whose title had been lost before the passing of the Act. While I am satisfied that the appeal must be allowed for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, this is a conclusion which I (like the judge [Neuberger J]…) ‘arrive at with no enthusiasm’.’
Neuberger J
Gazette 17-Feb-2000, Gazette 24-Feb-2000, Times 14-Mar-2000, [2000] Ch 676, [2000] 3 All ER 865
Limitation Act 1980 15(1) 17
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Walters v Webb 1870
. .
Cited – Vandeleur v Sloane 1919
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Caroline Graham and Another CA 6-Feb-2001
Where a tenant under a grazing license had stayed over after the end of the tenancy, and had been refused a renewed licence, and had continued to graze the land for over twelve years, the mere overstaying was not enough to evidence an animus . .
At first instance – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
At first instance – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.85085
Second Division – The court allowed an appeal under section 88(1) of the 2003 Act from a decision of the Scottish Land Court. The section was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court proceeded on the basis that section 72 was enacted as an anti-avoidance measure. But on that basis that it was inappropriate because of its excessive effect and its arbitrary scope. The Lord Justice Clerk said that it was excessive because, if the landlord should fail to obtain an order of the Land Court under section 72(9), the general partner is given a 1991 Act tenancy of the holding, with all the adverse consequences to the landlord that this involves, and the landlord is also exposed to the tenant’s contingent right to buy.
Lord Justice Clerk Gill, Lord Osborne and Lord Nimmo Smith
[2012] ScotCS CSIH – 26, 2012 Hous LR 30, 2012 GWD 12-234, 2013 SC 69, 2012 SCLR 403, 2012 SLT 633
Bailii
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 88(1), European Convention on Human Rights 1
Scotland
Citing:
At Scottish Land Court – Salvesen v Riddell SLC 29-Jul-2010
SLC Agricultural holdings – limited partnership tenancy – limited partner being agent of landlord – notice of dissolution of partnership validly given – notice given on 3 Feb 2003 – expected change of legislation . .
Cited by:
At Court of Session – Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
At SCS – Salvesen v Riddell and Another SCS 6-Jan-2015
The appellant enrolled a motion requesting payment by the Land court of the costs occasioned in a long running legal dispute. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.452231
ECJ (Judgment (Extracts)) Common agricultural policy – Direct payments – Additional criteria for ecological focus area with short rotation coppice – Article 45(8) of the Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 – Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 – Misuse of power – Legal certainty – Non-discrimination – Legitimate expectations – Right to property – Obligation to state reasons
T-662/14, [2016] EUECJ T-662/14
Bailii
Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 46(9)(a)
European
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.564913
(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Sugar – Production levies – Right to reimbursement – Sugar held in stock and not exported – Undue enrichment – Freedom to conduct a business – Method of calculation
C-96/15, [2016] EUECJ C-96/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:450
Bailii
European
Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.565633
References: [2001] EUECJ T-42/99
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: European
Last Update: 20-Feb-17
Ref: 213954
References: (1999) 198 CLR 180, [1999] HCA 36, [1999] 64 ALR 606, [1999] 64 73 ALJR 1190
Links: Austlii
Coram: Kirby J
Ratio: (High Court of Australia) The plaintiff farmers sought damages for financial losses incurred after the defendant negligently introduced a disease. Although the disease was not shown to have spread, neighbouring farm owners suffered economic loss by the imposition of a potato marketing ban in Western Australia attributable to the proximity of their farms to the outbreak of the disease, and sued the defendant for what was therefore pure economic loss (the absence of any escape of the disease preventing a claim under Rylands v. Fletcher).
Held: An important criterion for the imposition of liability for economic loss lay in ascertaining the extent to which the plaintiff was vulnerable to incurring loss by reason of the defendant’s conduct, and the extent to which that was or should have been apparent to the defendant.
Kirby J: ‘As against the approach which I favour, it has been said that the three identified elements are mere ‘labels’. So indeed they are. . . Labels are commonly used by lawyers. They help steer the mind through the task in hand.’
This case is cited by:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 28-Aug-16
Ref: 242687
References: C-120/08, [2010] EUECJ C-120/08
Links: Bailii
ECJ Ratio Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulations (EEC) No 2081/92 and (EC) No 510/2006 – Temporal application – Article 14 – Registration in accordance with the simplified procedure – Relations between trade marks and protected geographical indications
This case cites:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 10-May-16
Ref: 562614
References: [2012] UKUT B3 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
INCOME TAX – section 221 ITTOIA 2005 – averaging of farming profits – treatment of losses – whether inability to average losses is discriminatory – no – appeal dismissed
References: [2003] ScotCS 153
Links: Bailii, ScotC
Coram: Lord Hardie
The claimant’s fish farm had been damaged followng the discharge of oil from the Braer. The responders operated a scheme for compensation for losses. The parties disputed the entitlement of the claimants to compensation for losses following their inability to introduce smolt into the farm.
References: C-485/09, [2011] EUECJ C-485/09
Links: Bailii
ECJ Directive 91/628/EEC – Point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex – Regulation (EC) No 615/98 – Article 5(3) – Export refunds – Protection of bovine animals during rail transport – Conditions for payment of export refunds for bovine animals – Compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC – Principle of proportionality.
Statutes: Directive 91/628/EEC
