You can treat the following little tale as a parlour game: who can be first to guess what the court was ruling on. Or you can treat it as a sign of the times.
The case concerned both the British courts and Europe's mighty Court of Justice. And, by the way, I promise I am not making any of this up.
To put the case in a nutshell: The Grand Chamber of the court has responded to a request from the British courts (Queen's Bench Division), which asked for a preliminary ruling - I love the preliminary - under article 234 EC on Council Regulation (EC No. 1782/2003) on common rules for support schemes for the Common Agricultural Policy for farmers (OJ 2003 1270/1).
Specifically on the interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation 1782/2003 as viewed in the light of Articles 3 and 5, laying out rules for the maintenance of farmland in 'good agricultural and environmental conditions'. Or GAEC, as most of you no doubt call it in general conversation.
What was this mountainous fuss all about? Any player who cries 'footpaths' has the answer.
Court President Vassilios Skouris and his 14 fellow judges were weighing up footpaths. Or rather, one English footpath.
Or rather (sorry about this but it is rather confusing), whether the owner of a certain footpath is entitled to a benefit insofar as its maintenance falls under the requirements of Article 3, Annex IV as laid down in paragraphs 26-29 of the Schedule to the CAP Single Payment and Support Schemes.
More from Andrew Alexander...
- ANDREW ALEXANDER: Why is Cameron running scared? 06/10/09
- ANDREW ALEXANDER: Gordon Brown bounces back - until the next crisis hits 29/09/09
- ANDREW ALEXANDER: It's time for the G20 leaders to wiggle their eyebrows at the banks 22/09/09
- ANDREW ALEXANDER: Why we're all cutters now - even the cat 15/09/09
- ANDREW ALEXANDER: Overlearning is as dangerous as not learning at all 08/09/09
- ANDREW ALEXANDER: Edward Kennedy and the politics of vice and virtue 01/09/09
- ANDREW ALEXANDER: Who will have the cutting-edge nerve to save us? 25/08/09
- ANDREW ALEXANDER: A healthy debate? It's fit only for the children's ward 18/08/09
- VIEW FULL ARCHIVE
But there I go again. I am over oversimplifying. The issue is not about the length, breadth or delights of the footpath, but how its upkeep, or lack of it, should or should not be reflected in direct payments by the appropriate body according to its designated jurisdiction. Which, of course, takes us straight to the Cross Compliance (England) regulations (SI 2004 No. 3196), wisely cited by the court.
The issue centres on whether the rules, being devolved to member states under the above paragraphs, must apply without fear or distinction in all parts of the UK.
The farmer in question, a Mr Horvath, being a farmer in England, claimed he was suffering ' discrimination' - ah, that word - because the rules about direct payments for GAEC were less helpful than in, for example, Scotland, which is a devolved authority within the UK.
For what it is worth, the Grand Chamber ruled this was not the sort of discrimination defined under Community law, which, as we know, is a sin of the greatest wickedness. So bad luck for Mr Horvath.
Still you have to wonder about the wisdom, not to say sanity, of this fantastic legalistic expedition all the way from a footpath in England to Luxembourg. One also has to wonder, among other things, how many interpreters the court may have resorted to.
What is 'footpath' in Bulgarian or Latvian, I ponder.
You may also puzzle over how many judges you can get on to one bench. It sounds rather like some undergraduate joke. Fifteen certainly sounds rather crowded to me.
It is also fair to wonder how large was the army of lawyers who were involved at national and EU levels. The bill, which has ultimately to fall on the public purse, must be pretty large - considerably larger, one would guess, than the payment Farmer Horvath was hoping for in return for maintaining a right of way.
The whole event comes under the heading of The Way We Live Now.
And if you jib at it, or the cost involved, there can always be the smug official riposte that, after all, you voted for it (snigger snigger).
No comments:
Post a Comment