No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 January 2008
Since the last review in 2000, there have been dynamic developments in European Community agricultural law. This might appear surprising in that the Berlin Special European Council of March 1999 (‘Berlin Summit’) had seen agreement on major reforms to the common organisations of the market, including consolidation of existing legislation, and the drawing up of financial perspectives for the period 2000–2006. Accordingly, a degree of stability might have been expected. However, not long after agreement was reached at the Berlin Summit, Commissioner Fischler could emphasise that: ‘Reforming farm policy is an ongoing process.’1
1 Speech/01/10, The CAP after Agenda 2000: The Achievements and Challenges, Berlin, 18 01 2001.Google Scholar
2 Council Regulation 1766/92, OJ 1992 L 181/21, Art 3(4), as amended by Council Regulation 1253/1999, OJ 1999 L 160/18.Google Scholar
3 Council Regulation 1256/1999, OJ 1999 L 160/73, Art 3.Google Scholar
4 COM(2002)394.Google Scholar
5 Ibid, at 11.
6 Speech/02/339, The Mid-term Review: Towards a Policy that Pleases Everybody, Wageningen, 12 06 2002.Google Scholar
7 It may be noted that over the same period there were, nonetheless, substantial reforms to common organisations of the market which did not fall within the ambit of the agreement reached at the Berlin Summit: see, eg, Council Regulation 1260/2001, OJ 2001 L 178/1 (extending the sugar regime to the 2005/6 marketing year); and Council Regulation 2529/2001, OJ 2001 L 341/3 (consolidating the legislation governing the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat and introducing a fixed as opposed to a variable premium).Google Scholar
8 For early exegesis of the objectives of the European Model of Agriculture, see, eg, the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the proposed regulations issued on 18 Mar 1998, available at: <http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg06/ag2000/agprop/mot_en.htm>, visited on 3 June 1998. See also, generally, eg, JA McMahon, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy: From Quantity to Quality’ (2002) 53 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 9–27;,+visited+on+3+June+1998.+See+also,+generally,+eg,+JA+McMahon,+‘The+Common+Agricultural+Policy:+From+Quantity+to+Quality’+(2002)+53+Northern+Ireland+Legal+Quarterly+9–27;>Google Scholarand for an analytical treatment of multifunctionality, eg, OECD, Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework (Paris, OECD, 2001).Google Scholar
9 COM(99)719.Google Scholar
10 COM(2000)716.Google Scholar
11 [2002] OJ L31/1.Google Scholar
12 Ibid, Preamble, Recital (12).
13 Under this Scheme the United Kingdom was permitted to resume the export of certain bovine meat and derived products subject to specified conditions. For example, the bovine meat or derived products must have been obtained from animals eligible for the Scheme born after 1 Aug 1996, an eligibility criterion being that the dam must neither have developed BSE nor have been suspected of having contracted BSE. See Council Decision 98/256 of 16 Mar 1998, OJ 1998 L 113/32, as amended by Commission Decision 98/692 of 25 Nov 1998, OJ 1998 L328/28.Google Scholar
14 Case C-1/00, judgment of 13 Dec 2001, not yet published.Google Scholar
15 Ibid, Rec 88 of judgment.
16 OJ 2000 L 204/1, Art 13. However, where the beef is derived from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the same Member State or third country, the indication may declare the name of that Member State or third country as its ‘Origin’. For the detailed implementing legislation, see Commission Regulation 1825/2000, OJ 2000 L 216/8.Google Scholar
17 In respect of the external market, detailed legislation to implement Council Regulation 2702/1999, OJ 1999 L 327/7, was supplied by Commission Regulation 2879/2000, OJ 2000 L 333/63. In respect of the internal market, see Council Regulation 2826/2000, OJ 2000 L 328/2, and Commission Regulation 94/2002, OJ 2002 L 17/20.Google ScholarSee also, generally, eg, JA Usher, EC Agricultural Law (2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), at 166–9.Google Scholar
18 Respectively, Case C-66/00, judgment of 25 June 2002, not yet published;Google Scholarand Case C- 108/01, judgment of 20 May 2003, not yet published. In the latter case it was expressly confirmed that: ‘Designations of origin fall within the scope of industrial and commercial property rights’: Rec 64 of judgment.Google Scholar
19 G/AG/NG/W/18, 28 June 2000.Google Scholar
20 European Commission, Ref.625/02, Brussels, 16 Dec 2002.Google Scholar
21 Council Directive 2001/88, OJ 2001 L 316/1, and Commission Directive 2001/93, OJ 2001 L 316/36, both amending Council Directive 91/630, OJ 1991 L340/33.Google Scholar
22 G/AG/NG/W/19, 28 June 2000.Google Scholar
23 TN/AG/W/1, 17 Feb 2003. This proposed exemption was retained in the revised first draft: TN/AG/W/1/Rev 1, 18 Mar 2003.Google Scholar
24 Case C-189/01 [2001] ECR1–5689. See E Spaventa (2002) 39 Common Market Law Review 1159–70.Google Scholar
25 The ban was imposed by Council Directive 85/511, OJ 1985 L 315/11, as amended by Council Directive 90/423, OJ 1990 L224/13.Google Scholar
26 See, generally, eg, T Camm, and D Bowles, ‘Animal Welfare and the Treaty of Rome—a Legal Analysis of the Protocol on Animal Welfare and Welfare Standards in the European Union’, (2000) 12 Journal of Environmental Law 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 CaseC-189/01, [2001] ECR I–5689, at I–5718.Google Scholar
28 These reductions were based on a relatively optimistic view of the outlook for agricultural markets presented by the European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture in Prospects for Agricultural Markets 2002–2009 (June 2002).Google Scholar
29 Council Regulation 1259/1999, OJ 1999 L 160/113, Art 3.Google Scholar
30 The sums so modulated became available to the Member State concerned as additional Community support for four measures implemented under the ‘Rural Development Regulation’, Council Regulation 1257/1999, OJ 1999 L 160/80 (those relating to: early retirement; lessfavoured areas and areas with environmental restrictions; agri-environmental initiatives; and afforestation).Google Scholar
31 France, Portugal and the United Kingdom implemented modulation prior to the issue of the Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy; and they were joined by Germany as from 1 Jan 2003: Agra-Europe Weekly, No 2035, 3 Jan 2003, at N/2.Google Scholar
32 The Common Agricultural Policy Support Schemes (Modulation) Regulations 2000, SI 2000 No 3127.Google Scholar
33 Shortly after the issue of the Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy, Commissioner Fischler reiterated the nostrum that, under the existing system, 80 per cent of payments were made to 20 per cent of farms: IP/02/1074, ‘Paying Farmers for What Society Wants’: Franz Fischler Presents CAP Review in the UK, Brussels, 17 June 2002.Google Scholar
34 In addition, Member States would be permitted to increase this franchise by 3,000 Euros for each further Annual Work Unit.Google Scholar
35 See, eg, Memo/02/198, Commission Publishes Indicative Figures on the Distribution of Direct Farm Aid, Brussels, 1 June 2002.Google Scholar
36 COM(2003)23.Google Scholar
37 Council of the European Union, Presidency Conclusions: Brussels European Council, 24 and 25 October 2002, 14702/02, Brussels, Nov 2002, at para 12.Google Scholar
38 The importance of engaging in active production has also become a pervading theme of the European Court of Justice: see, eg, Case C-401/99, Thomsen v Amt für Ländliche Räume Husum, judgment of 20 June 2002, not yet published.Google Scholar
39 Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, Annex 2, para 6(e).Google Scholar
40 By contrast, at the Berlin Summit a uniform reduction of 5 per cent per year was agreed over a 3-year implementation period.Google Scholar
41 For the various options for reform of the milk quota system considered within the context of the Mid-term Review, see European Commission, Report on Milk Quotas, SEC(2002)789.Google Scholar
42 This would be achieved by providing, in respect of the first 5,000 Euros of direct payments, additional aid equal to the amount removed by degression.Google Scholar
43 This would be achieved by providing, in respect of direct payments in excess of 5,000 Euros and up to 50,000 Euros, additional aid at half the rate applicable to the first 5,000 Euros, account also being taken of modulation.Google Scholar
44 New Member States would be exempt from both degression and modulation until such time as their direct payments reached parity in 2013.Google Scholar
45 For a summary of the views of Member States, see, eg, Agra-Europe Weekly, No 2056, 30 May 2003, at EP/2–3.Google Scholar
46 Speech/03/326, The New, Reformed Agricultural Policy, Luxembourg, 26 June 2003.Google Scholar
47 Speech/03/356, CAP Reform, Brussels, 9 June 2003.Google Scholar
48 For the decisions reached in Luxembourg on 26 June 2003, see, eg, IP/03/898, EU Fundamentally Reforms its Farm Policy to Accomplish Sustainable Farming in Europe, Luxembourg, 26 June 2003. At the time of writing, the Community implementing legislation remains to be enacted.Google Scholar