Dowling v Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1991 |
| Date | 01 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | [1989 No. 11785P] |
| Court | High Court |
European Community regulation - Application by court of principles of statutory interpretation - Interpretation consistent with object and purpose of statutory provision - Whether such interpretation can override inconsistent literal interpretation. European Communities - Common Agricultural Policy - Milk quotas - Quota granted by reference to quantity of milk produced during period when plaintiff did not engage in milk production- Whether plaintiff came within "Mulder regulations" extending such reference period - Whether such regulations discriminatory- Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1078/77 - Council Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84 -Council Regulation (EEC) No. 764/89, art. 3 (a).
Prior to 1980 the plaintiff farmer had a dairy herd which he converted to beef in November, 1978, to take advantage of a conversion premium paid pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1078/77. Under this scheme the plaintiff was free to resume milk production in November, 1982, but was unable to do so because of ill health. By Council Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84 ("the quota regulations") the European Community introduced a quota system to curb milk production. A quota or limit on the amount of milk that could be supplied was allocated to individual farmers based on the gallonage of milk delivered in 1983. The quota regulations were subsequently amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 764/89 ("the Mulder regulations"). This gave farmers who had voluntarily withdrawn from milk production for a limited period, which period included the reference period for obtaining a milk quota, a quota based on the quantity of milk delivered in the twelve months preceding the application for a conversion premium provided that the period of non-production expired after the 30 September, 1983. The plaintiff applied to the Department of Agriculture for a quota under the Mulder regulations. This application was refused as the plaintiff's period of non-production had expired in November, 1982. The plaintiff sought judicial review to quash the refusal on the grounds that a literal application of the Mulder regulations would give rise to discrimination against someone in the plaintiff's position so as to invalidate all or part of the Mulder regulations. Held by Murphy J., in refusing the relief sought, 1, that, in interpreting a legislative provision, a court cannot apply the principles of interpretation in such a manner so as to amend the provision before it or to substitute it with another provision, as to do so would be to usurp the functions of the legislature. East Donegal Co-Operative Society v. Attorney GeneralIR[1970] I.R. 317 followed. 2. That in the interpretation of secondary provisions of European Community law, a court should prefer an interpretation which renders the provision consistent with the Treaty of Rome and which gives effect to the object and purpose of the provision overriding an inconsistent literal interpretation. Klensch v. Secretaire dÉtat à l'Agriculture et à la ViticultureUNK [1986] E.C.R. 3477; Statens Kontrolv. LarsenUNK [1978] E.C.R. 1543 and Blottner v. Bestuur van de Niewe Algemene BedrijfsverenigingUNK[1977] E.C.R. 1141 considered. 3. That a literal interpretation of the Mulder regulations could give rise to discrimination against farmers such as the plaintiff who did not produce milk at all between 1981 and 1983 and who were intended to be protected by the regulations. 4. That, however, the words used in the Mulder regulations restricting the application of the Mulder regulations to farmers whose non-production period expired before 30 September, 1983, were so clear that they did not admit of the substitution of other dates in order to vindicate the rights asserted by the plaintiff.
High Court
Cases mentioned in this report:—
Blottner v. Bestuur van de Niewe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (Case 109/76)UNK[1977] E.C.R. 1141.
East Donegal Co-Operative Livestock Mart Ltd. v. Attorney GeneralIR [1970] I.R. 317.
Klensch v. Secretaire d'État état a l'Agriculture et à la Viticulture (Cases 201-202)UNKUNK[1986] E.C.R. 3477; [1988] 1 C.M.L.R. 151.
Mulder v. Minister von Landbouw en Visserij (Case 120/86)UNKUNK [1988] E.C.R. 2344; [1989] 2 C.M.L.R. 1.
O'Brien v. IrelandIRDLRM [1991] 2 I.R. 387; [1990] I.L.R.M. 466.
Statens Kontrol v. Larsen (Case 143/77)UNKUNK [1978] E.C.R. 1543; [1979] 2 C.M.L.R. 680.
Statute - Interpretation - Statutory interpretation - European Community regulation - Application by court of principles of statutory interpretation - Interpretation consistent with object and purpose of statutory provision - Whether such interpretation can override inconsistent literal interpretation.
European Communities - Common Agricultural Policy - Milk quotas - Quota granted by reference to quantity of milk produced during period when plaintiff did not engage in milk production - Whether plaintiff came within "Mulder regulations" extending such reference period - Whether such regulations discriminatory - Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1078/77 - Council Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84 - Council Regulation (EEC) No. 764/89, art. 3 (a).
Judicial Review.
On the 9th October, 1989, the High Court (Hamilton P.), ex parte, granted the plaintiff's application for leave to apply for judicial review. The plaintiff's application, dated the 6th October, 1989, sought an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Department of Agriculture refusing to grant the plaintiff a special reference quantity (a "quota") pursuant to various E.C. directives which are detailed in the judgment of Murphy J., infra. The High Court directed that the application was to be made by way of plenary summons and the plaintiff issued a plenary summons on the 11th October, 1989.
The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of Murphy J., infra.
The matter was heard by the High Court (Murphy J.), on the 12th and 13th December, 1989.
Prior to 1980 the plaintiff farmer had a dairy herd which he converted to beef in November, 1978, to take advantage of a conversion premium paid pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1078/77. Under this scheme the plaintiff was free to resume milk production in November, 1982, but was unable to do so because of ill health.
By Council Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84 ("the quota regulations") the European Community introduced a quota system to curb milk production. A quota or limit on the amount of milk that could be supplied was allocated to individual farmers based on the gallonage of milk delivered in 1983. The quota regulations were subsequently amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 764/89 ("the Mulder regulations"). This gave farmers who had voluntarily withdrawn from milk production for a limited period, which period included the reference period for obtaining a milk quota, a quota based on the quantity of milk delivered in the twelve months preceding the application for a conversion premium provided that the period of non-production expired after the 30th September, 1983.
The plaintiff applied to the Department of Agriculture for a quota under the Mulder regulations. This application was refused as the plaintiff's period of non-production had expired in November, 1982. The plaintiff sought judicial review to quash the refusal on the grounds that a literal application of the Mulder regulations would give rise to discrimination against someone in the plaintiff's position so as to invalidate all or part of the Mulder regulations.
Held by Murphy J., in refusing the relief sought, 1, that, in interpreting a legislative provision, a court cannot apply the principles of interpretation in such a manner so as to amend the provision before it or to substitute it with another provision, as to do so would be to usurp the functions of the legislature.
East Donegal Co-Operative Society v. Attorney GeneralIR [1970] I.R. 317 followed.
2. That in the interpretation of secondary provisions of European Community law, a court should prefer an interpretation which renders the provision consistent with the Treaty of Rome and which gives effect to the object and purpose of the provision overriding an inconsistent literal interpretation.
Klensch v. Secretaire d'État étatà l'Agriculture et à la ViticultureUNK [1986] E.C.R. 3477; Statens Kontrol v. LarsenUNK [1978] E.C.R. 1543 and Blottner v. Bestuur van de Niewe Algemene BedrijfsverenigingUNK[1977] E.C.R. 1141 considered.
3. That a literal interpretation of the Mulder regulations could give rise to discrimination against farmers such as the plaintiff who did not produce milk at all between 1981 and 1983 and who were intended to be protected by the regulations.
4. That, however, the words used in the Mulder regulations restricting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial