Search

Agricultural law in the European Union (EU) is often referred to as a special sector, which operates largely in isolation from other provisions governing the internal market. Latest legislative, political and judicial advances push for realisation of policy consideration stipulated outside of the provisions on agriculture in the Treaties. Against these developments, this article investigates if agricultural law is or has become an area that is increasingly part of "normal" internal market law. It suggests that, in relationship to free movement law, there is evidence that the special treatment ofagriculture in EU law has been widely eroded. In EU competition law, agriculture is still understood as a special sector in its traditional sense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Organisation juive europeenne, Vignoble Psagot Ltd v Ministre de l'Economie et des Finances (Organisation juive europeenne) (C-363/18), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) was tasked with deciding what information on its country of origin or place of provenance is mandatory for business according to existing European legislation. This case note summarises the interpretative decisions taken by the AG Hogan (Advocate General or AG) and the Court in their opinion andjudgment, respectively. It then considers the broader implications of this case from several perspectives: first, from the perspective of political consumerism and its (potential) role in EU internal market law; second, from the perspective of the enforcement of international law; and third, from the perspective of the coherence of EU food and consumer law including its behavioural dimension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European agricultural sectors and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) face the triple challenge of productivity increase to meet increasing demands for food, fibre and energy, pressing public policy issues regarding public health and nutrition and the public good components of agricultural land use (emissions, soil protection, landscape, biodiversity, water, climate change), and adaptation to a changing institutional environment with liberalised markets and integrated transnational value chains. The current governance arrangements for the sector are widely criticised for their complexity, implementation gaps, inefficiency and ineffectiveness. This article discusses whether a shift towards a different regulatory approach-- principles-based regulation (PBR) in the form of the "new approach"--could offer an avenue for fundamental improvements. After reviewing the problems in the current CAP and explaining the broader "new approach" to regulation, we discuss its applicability to the internal agricultural market, describe what a "new approach" could look like in this sector, and how PBR could be linked to the farm payments made under the CAP. We finally reflect on the necessary legal competence basis and on the potential of PBR to address the major challenges facing the European agricultural sector and the CAP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Scotch Whisky Association the Court of Justice held that a minimum unit pricing mechanism on alcoholic drinks constituted a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction under art. 34 TFEU, because it prevents the lower cost price of imported products being reflected in the selling price to the consumer, and therefore hinders market access. Both the Advocate General and the Court used this judgment to introduce some remarkable insights particularly on the future of the market access formula, the relationship of the Common Agricultural Policy to the freedom of goods, and how national courts need to make recourse to scientific evidence when applying the proportionality test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Teekanne, the Court of Justice held that the labelling of food stuffs may not give the impression that an ingredient is present in a product where it is in fact not present, and this is apparent solely from the list of ingredients on the packaging. The judgment marks a significant realignment of previous cases that had considered the behaviour of consumers regarding the list of ingredients. In prior case law the Court had found consumers to be adequately protected if they had the possibility to gather the relevant information from the list of ingredients. In Teekanne, the Court stipulated that such information on the ingredients list is not able to "correct" a "consumers erroneous or misleading impression" created by the "overall labelling" taken as a whole. The ruling is potentially the first case in a series of judgments that understands the "average consumer" in a less normative way, and is open to arguments about the real-world vulnerability levels of consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Berger v Freistaat Bayern, the Court of Justice approved warnings from a competent public authority about foodstuffs that are unfit for human consumption. Although this conclusion is clearly backed up by the wording of the Foodcode, the judgment is remarkable for three reasons. First, as the Court comes to the conclusion by referring solely to the consumers' interest in safety, disregarding a balancing test against the producers' right to the free marketing of food in art. 5 (2) Foodcode, this case carries the dangerous potential of being interpreted as if consumer interests generally trump the producer's right to the free marketing of food. Secondly, the case has to be aligned with the Court's ruling on disclosure in AGM-COS.MET, where it favoured the producer's right to the free movement of products over consumers' interest in safety. Thirdly, by connecting the scope of the term "unfit for human consumption" to consumer interests in food only, the decision worryingly opens up this term to consideration of other legislative decisions in EU law on the protection of the consumers' interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]