Agriculture - 1985- 1989

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 01 January 2009.

Gebr Metelmann gmbh & co Kg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas C-276/84
12 Dec 1985 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	Europa 1. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - export refunds -refunds fixed in advance - condition of payment - departure of the goods ' unaltered ' from the territory of the community - repackaging following customs clearance - forfeiture of the refund - completion of customs formalities after the event - reference date for determining the rate of refund - actual date of departure (commission regulation no 2730/79, art. 9 (1)) 2. Agriculture - monetary compensatory amounts - advance fixing of compensatory amounts and export refunds - forfeiture of the refund -concomitant forfeiture of the monetary compensatory amount - completion of customs formalities after the event - reference date for determining the rate of the compensatory amount - date adopted for determining the rate of refund (commission regulation no 243/78, art. 2; commission regulation no 1371/81). 1. Article 9 (1) of regulation (EEC) no 2730/79, which provides that the export refund is to be paid on condition that the goods have left the geographical territory of the community ' unaltered ', must be interpreted as meaning that any alteration in the presentation of the goods, where it is such as to render customs control more difficult, entails forfeiture of the refund. Where, exceptionally, customs export formalities may still be completed after the date on which the goods have left the geographical territory of the community, the rate of refund to be applied is that applicable on that date. 2. Since monetary compensatory amounts may be fixed in advance only if the export refunds and levies are also fixed in advance, forfeiture of the refund fixed in advance also entails forfeiture of the monetary compensatory amounts fixed in advance. Where customs formalities are completed after the event, reference may not be made to different dates for the purpose of fixing the rate of the monetary compensatory amount payable pursuant to regulation no 1371/81 and the rate of the refund.
	Link[s] omitted

Vonk's Kaas Inkoop en Produktie Holland BV -v- Minister van Landbouw en Visserij et Produktschap voor Zuivel C-208/84
12 Dec 1985 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	Europa Agriculture - monetary compensatory amounts - fixing - obligation to take into account risks of disturbances in trade, including those caused by the monetary compensatory amounts themselves - product occurring in different forms having different commercial values - discretion of commission (commission regulation no 1245/83, annex I, part 5, note 5, as amended by regulations Nos 3281/83 and 270/84). When fixing monetary compensatory amounts, the commission must not only act to prevent disturbances to normal trade caused by the monetary measures adopted by the member states but also see to it that the compensatory amounts themselves are not so constituted as to provoke such disturbances or to create market conditions favourable to the formation of artificial trade flows. It is therefore not only empowered but under a duty to amend its existing legislation if it finds that improper transactions of the type described above have occurred or that there is a risk that they may occur. In its choice of the measures to be adopted, the commission must be allowed a broad measure of discretion where the product concerned is of very limited importance for trade within the community and with non-member countries and where, furthermore, it occurs in two forms which are administratively difficult to distinguish, one of which is devoid of commercial value while the other is perfectly capable of being processed and reprocessed in a closed circuit without ever reaching the stage of final consumption.
	Link[s] omitted

Commission Of The European Communities -v- United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Judgment) Case 23/84
2 Dec 1986 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	Europa Agriculture - common organization of the market - milk and milk products - special rights of the milk marketing boards - price differentiation for whole milk according to its intended use - permissible - reference to the intended use of a processed product - not permissible (council regulation no 1422/78, art. 9 (1); commission regulation no 1565/79, art. 6 (2))
	Link[s] omitted

Spa Villa Banfi -v- Regione Toscana and others C-312/85
18 Dec 1986 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	Europa Agriculture - common agricultural policy - structural reform - modernization of farms - directive 72/159/eec - withholding of the status of ' farmer practising farming as his main occupation ' from certain types of legal person by reason of their legal form - not permissible (council directive 72/159, arts 2 and 3 (1)). Article 3 (1) of council directive 72/159 on the modernization of farms must be interpreted as meaning that member states, when laying down the criteria to be fulfilled by a legal person in order to be regarded as a farmer practising farming as his main occupation, are not permitted to exclude certain types of such legal person from the scope of the directive solely by reason of their legal form.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- North Riding of Yorkshire County Council [1989] 1 QB 201
1989	Local Government, Agriculture	Casemap 1 Citers
	The constituent councils, not having exercised the power to impose restrictions and conditions in advance, could not decline responsibility for items of expenditure necessarily incurred by the committee. Restrictions or conditions had to be imposed by unanimous agreement between all the councils concerned.

Regina -v- Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Jaderow Ltd C-216/87
14 Dec 1989 ECJ	European, Agriculture, Licensing
	Europa Fishing - Common structural policy - Conservation of the resources of the sea - Fishing quota system - Regulation by a Member State of the use of its quotas - Grant of licences - Conditions for ensuring that a real economic link exists between vessels and the State concerned - Requirement for vessels to operate from national ports - Means of proof - Landing of a proportion of the vessel' s catches and its periodic presence in national ports - Whether permissible - Conditions - Amendment of the national rules relating to the grant of licences - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectation - Breach - None (Council Regulation No 101/76, Art. 2(1), No 2057/82, Arts 6(1) and 9(1), No 170/83, Arts 4 and 5(2) and No 172/83) Community law as it now stands does not preclude a Member State, in issuing to one of its vessels a licence authorizing it to fish against national quotas, from laying down conditions designed to ensure that the vessel has a real economic link with that State if that link concerns only the relations between the vessel' s fishing operations and the populations dependent on fisheries and related industries or from laying down the condition, in order to ensure that there is such a link, that the vessel is to operate from national ports, if that condition does not involve an obligation for the vessel to depart from a national port on all its fishing trips. The Member State concerned is entitled to consider that proof of compliance with that condition may be provided by the landing of a proportion of catches or by the periodic presence of the vessel in national ports and may accept, as evidence that the vessel operates from national ports, only the landing of a specified proportion of the vessel' s catches or a specified periodic presence of the vessel in national ports, provided that the frequency with which the vessel is required to be present in those ports does not impose, directly or indirectly, an obligation to land the vessel' s catches in national ports or hinder normal fishing operations. The fact that in a Member State the conditions for granting fishing licences authorizing fishing against national quotas are made more restrictive while remaining compatible with Community law does not constitute a breach of the protection owed to the legitimate expectation of traders.
	Link[s] omitted

The Queen -v- Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex Parte Agegate C-3/87; [1989] ECR 4459
14 Dec 1989 ECJ	European, Agriculture	Casemap
	The court considered the legality of licensing conditions imposed by the United Kingdom upon licences to fish issued under the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967. One of those conditions required 75% of the crew to reside ashore in the United Kingdom. Held: The condition was unlawful under the Treaty.
	Link[s] omitted