Agriculture - 1998

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 15 cases, and was prepared on 15 November 2008.

John Joseph Richards of Northumberland County Council Trading Standards Department -v- George Forster Stephenson [1998] EWHC Admin 75
27 Jan 1998 Admn	Agriculture, Animals
	Failure to bury sheep carcasses.
	Statute References omitted
	Link[s] omitted

Barrett (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Powell
11 Feb 1998 ChD	Capital Gains Tax, Agriculture
	Tenant farmer continuing business for two years after payment to land-owner on surrender of lease lost relief for business retirement.
	Statute References omitted

Calcott -v- Js Bloor (Measham) Ltd
26 Feb 1998 CA	Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant
	The conversion of an agricultural tenancy for less than year, to a tenancy from year to year, operated from the original agreement date, not the end of period of the first tenancy. The application of the section to the tenancy meant that the tenancy began immediately and the terancy was determinable accordingly on the anniversary.
	Statute References omitted

United Kingdom -v- Commission (Judgment) C-180/96;; [1996] EUECJ C-180/96R
5 May 1998 ECJ	European, Agriculture, Health, Animals	Casemap 1 Cites
	The European ban of the export of British beef in order to contain the spread of BSE was not disproportionate to the need nor outside the range of possible discretion of the Commission of the Community. 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.
	Link[s] omitted

North Devon District Council -v- Secretary of State for Environment, D Rottenbury B E Rottenbury [1998] EWHC Admin 458
12 May 1998 QBD	Agriculture, Planning
	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.
	Statute References omitted
	Link[s] omitted

Simmonds -v- Michael Franklin Powell, National Trust for Places of Historic Interest and Natural Beauty [1998] EWCA Civ 1062
22 Jun 1998 CA	Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture, Arbitration
	Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
	Link[s] omitted

Barrett; Scrope (the Trustees of SP Scott Children) and Scott -v- Morgan [1998] EWCA Civ 1118; [1999] 1 WLR 1109
30 Jun 1998 CA Sir Richard Scott V.-C	Agriculture	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	An artificial surrender of a head lease with the sole intention of defeating a sub tenancy was not effective and the subtenant became head tenant in their stead. The collusion defeated the ruse. "It is unilateral notices to quit that destroy sub-tenancies; it is unilateral acts determining the head tenancies that destroy sub-tenancies. Consensual acts done by arrangement between landlord and tenant do not, in my opinion, do so."
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Limited and others [1998] EWCA Civ 1154; [1998] EWCA Civ 1155
6 Jul 1998 CA	European, Agriculture
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another, ex parte Watson; Sharpes International Seeds Ltd and Another, Interveners [1998] EWHC Admin 737; [1998] EWCA Civ 1250
10 Jul 1998 Admn	Agriculture
	On a trial of genetically modified seeds, the Secretary of State was not irrational to rely on a report, saying that the risk of cross pollination with a neighbour's organic produce was small. However the failure to carry out replicated trials, made it not a proper or effective scientific test. The trial was subject to two regulatory regimes, it failed on one, but the only power to order the destruction of a crop was for safety reasons, and no risk had been demonstrated.
	Statute References omitted
	Link[s] omitted

RJB Mining (Uk) Limited -v- J W Hambleton and M J Hambleton [1998] EWCA Civ 1304
27 Jul 1998 CA	Land, Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture
	Link[s] omitted

Jensen -v- Landbrugsministeriet - Ef - Direktorat C-132/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 14/98
9 Sep 1998 ECJ	Agriculture, European
	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

Booker Aquaculture Ltd -v- Secretary of State for Scotland
24 Sep 1998 OHCS	Agriculture
	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.
	Statute References omitted

Regina -v- Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte First City Trading and others C-263/97; [1997] Eu LR 195
29 Sep 1998 ECJ	European, Agriculture	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Europa 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
	Link[s] omitted

United Kingdom -v- Commission (Judgment) C-209/96
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	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.
	Link[s] omitted

Bruner -v- Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1998,p I-8333) (Judgment) C-290/97
10 Dec 1998 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	Europa Poultry cuts made up of two hind quarters of a fowl still attached to one another by the skin of the back constitute `quarters' (code 0207 41 11 000) within the meaning of the nomenclature of agricultural products for export refunds established by Regulation No 3846/87. First, because of their composition, the products in question correspond exactly to the definition of hind quarters in accordance with the general rules for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature, with one difference, namely that, because of the way in which they are cut, the two quarters are not wholly separated; secondly, that fact does not affect the product's essential characteristic - within the meaning of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature - of being constituted of two hind quarters of chicken.
	Link[s] omitted