Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:53:01.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Karl Newman  and
Stefan Enchelmaier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Taking stock in its Agenda 2000—For a Stronger and Wider Union,1 the Commission offered a frank view of the shortcomings in this field. “Rural policy of the Union”, it said, “still appears as a juxtaposition of agricultural market policy, structural, and environmental policy with rather complex instruments and lacking overall coherence.”2 Consequently, the Commission sees an “urgent need for a radical simplification of rules and a greater, decentralisation of policy implementation”.3

Type
Current Developments: European Community Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , July 1998 , pp. 706 - 712
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bulletin EU, Supp.5/97, Brussels 1997.Google Scholar

2. Idem, p.27, right col., 2nd para.

3. Idem, p.28, right col., 5th para.

4. Council Reg. (EC) No.2200/96 of 26 Oct 1996 (1996) O.J. L297/1 (21 Nov.).

5. Recital 7.

6. Art.18(1) and (3).

7. Art.11(1)(c)(3), 1st indent.

8. Art.15(1)and(3).

9. Reg. 26 of 4 Apr. 1962 [1959–1962] O.J. Eng. Sp. Ed. p.132 mitigates this somewhat regarding agricultural products. On the interface between agricultural and competition policy, see recently Joined Cases C–319/93, C–40/94 and C–224/94 Hendrik Evert Dijkstra v. Friesland (Frico Domo) Coöperative BA [1995] E.C.R. 1–4497Google Scholar and Case C–399/93 H.G. Oude Luttikhuis et al. v. Verenigende Coöperative Melkindustrie Coberco BA [1995] E.C.R. 1–4520.Google Scholar

10. Cf. Art.18(5) and Art.20(1).

11. Commission Decision on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (96/239/EC) (1996) O.J. L78/47 (28 Mar.)Google Scholar, as amended by Commission Dec.96/362/EC of 11 June 1996 (1996) O.J. L139/17 (12 June). Articles in the main text as amended. By two judgments of 5 May 1998 the ECJ declined to annul the decision (Case C–157/96, National Farmen Union and Case C–189/96, U.K. v. EC. Commission). Independently of this, the Council repealed and replaced Dec. 96/239/EC on 16 March 1998 by Dec. 98/256/EC, (1998) O.J. L113/32 (15 April)Google Scholar.

12. Arts.1(1), 1a, and Annex.

13. Art.3.

14. Commission Decision on the approval of alternative heat treatment systems for processing animal waste with a view to the inactivation of spongiform encephalopathy agents (96/449/EC) of 18 06 (1996) O.J. L184/43 (24 July).Google Scholar

15. Recital 5 and Art.2(1), (2), (4).

16. Commission Decision concerning protection measures in trade in mammalian animal waste (97/735/EC) of 21 Oct. 1997 (1997) O.J. L294/7 (28 Oct.).

17. Art.4 of Dec.97/735/EC.

18. Council Reg. (EC) No.820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products of 21 Apr.1997 (1997) O.J. L117/1 (7 May)Google Scholar; cf., in particular, Arts.3–7 and 14(1) and (2). The system draws on central computerised databases in accordance with Dir.97/12/EC (1997) O.J. L109/1 (25 Apr.)Google Scholar. As to the relevance of these databases, cf. the last para, of this section. It should also be noticed that on 18 Dec 1997 the Council adopted Dir.97/98/EC on the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the EC from third countries (1998) O.J. L24/9(30 Jan.).

19. Commission Decision on the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) (97/534/EC) of 30 July 1997 (1997) O.J. L216/95 (8 Aug.)Google Scholar; cf., in particular, Recital 23 and Arts.1,2,4 and 6. Com. Dec.97/866/EC of 16 Dec. 1997 has deferred the date from which the first-mentioned decision is to be applied from 1 Jan. to 1 Apr. 1998. The reasons for the deferral are unclear, the Commission cites, among others, the need to “review new scientific evidence”.

20. Com. Dir. 97/47/EC of 28 July 1997 amending the Annexes to Council Dirs. 77/101/ EEC, 79/373/EC and 91/357/EEC (1997) O.J. L211/45 (5 Aug.). On the science of the BSE crisis, cf. The Economist, 14 Mar. 1998.

21. Commission Decision establishing a list of ingredients whose use is prohibited in compound feeding stuffs (97/582/EC) of 28 July 1997 (1997) O.J. L237/39 (28 Aug.).Google Scholar

22. Press release IP/98/29 of 14 01 1998.Google Scholar

23. Press release IP/98/178 of 25 02 1998.Google Scholar

24. This resulted in the adoption of Council Dec. 98/256/EC, which deals with the situation in Northern Ireland and permissible exports from the U.K. of products derived from animals slaughtered elsewhere, and further tightens the requirements for exports of products from animals slaughtered in the U.K.

25. As established by Reg.404/93 (1993) O.J. L47/1Google Scholar. See, on this, the succinct discussion by Snyder (1996) 45 I.C.L.Q. 744–747.Google Scholar

26. It will be remembered that Germany was (and still is) the largest importer of so-called dollar bananas from Central America and therefore stood to lose most from the quota and tariffs imposed on these by the new COM in bananas.

27. The question there was whether national courts could grant interim relief in cases where EC institutions have failed to act and an individual stands to suffer hardship as a result. The ECJ held that they could not, but that judicial protection by the ECJ could be sought, Case C–68/95 T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, judgment of 26 11 1996, [1996] E.C.R. 1–6065, paras.53, 57–61.Google Scholar

28. Joined Cases C–364/95 and C–365/95 T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, judgment of 10 Mar. 1998 (not yet rep.), paras.61–63 and 87–89. The reader should also consider paras.44–51 of the judgment to get an idea of the tangled background to the proceedings and the potential turmoil looming for the EC legal order from the controversy about the banana regime; on the latter point see Everling, “Will Europe Slip on Bananas?” (1996) 33 C.M.L.Rev. 401Google Scholar. For a general survey of the recent case law on agriculture (until the end of 1996), the reader is referred to Barents (1997) 34 C.M.L.Rev. 811.Google Scholar

29. Art.3(2) of Reg.478/95 exempted “Category B operators” (i.e. importers of EC-produced and/or “traditional” ACP bananas) from the obligation to obtain export licences. The countries mentioned were thus granted a guaranteed outlet of their produce to the EC as part of the 1994 “Banana Framework Agreement” under the auspices of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations; this was the first (and not the last) major dilution of the banana regime as originally devised in 1993. For details, see Snyder, op. cit supra n.25.

30. Case C–122/95 Germany v. Council (not yet rep.), paras.68–72 (in so far as identical with the aforementioned judgment).

31. WTO Appellate Body: EC-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, AB–1997–3, 9 09 1997; summary of the findings at No.255, pp.107et seq.Google Scholar

32. Art.XIII:1 of the GATT 1994; Nos.160–163 of the Appellate Body's findings.Google Scholar

33. Art.I:1 of the GATT 1994; Nos.175 and 176 of the Appellate Body's findings.Google Scholar

34. Art.II of the GATS; No.244 of the Appellate Body's findings.

35. Press release IP/98/28 of 14 Jan. 1998. The German government has already announced its dissatisfaction with these proposals and again advocated the transformation of all quantitative restrictions on third-country bananas into tariffs, a hurdle more easily overcome thanks to the latter bananas' superior competitiveness, see Frankfurter Aligemeine Zeitung, 17 03 1998, p.21: “Enttäuschung über das Rechtsgutachten im Bananenstreit”.Google Scholar

36. Council Decision concerning the restructuring of the Community fisheries sector with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation (97/413/EC) of 26 06 1997 (1997) O.J. L175/27 (3 July), Arts.2(2)–(4) and 5.Google Scholar

37. Council Reg. (EC) No.847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of total allowable catches and quotas (1996) O.J. L115/3 (9 May), Art.5.Google Scholar

38. Com. Reg. (EC) No.1265/96 of 1 July 1996 (1996) O.J. L163/24 (2 July), Arts.1 and 3.Google Scholar

39. Commission Commimication “Fisheries Monitoring and the CFP” 26 Feb. 1998, as downloaded from the EC's Internet server at http://europa.eu.int.

40. Council Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC) of 27 06 1985 (1985) O.J. L175/40 (5 July).Google Scholar

41. Council Dir.97/11 (1997) O.J. L73/5 (14 Mar).Google Scholar

42. Arts.2(3) and 7, as amended.

43. Formerly Art.13.

44. Council Dir.96/61/EC of 24 09 1996 (1996) O.J. L257/26 (10 Oct.)Google Scholar.

45. Recitals 4 and 5.

46. Art.12(2); definition in Art.2 No.10(b).

47. Arts.4 and 5(1).

48. Arts.9(1), 3 and 10; definition in Art.2 No.11.

49. Art.13(2), 2nd indent.

50. Art.9(4).

51. In this context it should be noted that Council Dec.97/872/EC on a Community action programme promoting non-governmental organizations primarily active in the field of environmental protection (1997) O.J. L354/25 (30 Dec.) grants financial assistance to the activities of such NGOs.

52. 97/C 129/08 (1997) O.J. C129/14 (25 Apr.).Google Scholar

53. Recital 8.

54. Art.2(a)(i).

55. Art.4(1).

56. Art.5(1) and (2).

57. Art.10.

58. Case C–72/95 Aanemersbedrijf P.K Kraaijeveld BV et al. v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland, judgment of 24 10 1996, [1996] E.C.R. 1–5403, paras.48–51.Google Scholar

59. This continues the scrutiny, lately heightened, by the ECJ of national procedural rules; for an overview of the recent case law, see Hoskins, “Tilting the Balance: Supremacy and National Procedural Rules” (1996) 21 E.L.R. 365Google Scholar and Kakouris, “Do the Member States Possess Judicial Procedural Autonomy?” (1997) 34 C.M.L.Rev. 1389.Google Scholar

60. Kraaijeveld, supra n.58, at paras.58–61.

61. Case C–126/96 Inter-Environment Wallonie ASBL v. Région Wallonne, judgment of 18 Dec. 1997 (not yet rep.), paras.43–45. In the case in hand, the Walloon region of Belgium had (faultily) exempted products from the definition of “waste” in Art.1(a) of Dir.75/442/EEC that were an “integral part of an industrial production process”.