Maher v Minister for Agriculture

JurisdictionIreland
CourtSupreme Court
JudgeMrs. Justice Denham,Murray, J.,FENNELLY J.
Judgment Date30 Mar 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] IESC 32
Docket Number[H.C. 2000 No. 202 J.R.;

[2001] IESC 32

THE SUPREME COURT

KEANE C.J.

DENHAM J.

MURPHY J.

MURRAY J.

FENNELLY J.

340/2000
MAHER & ORS v. MIN FOR AGRICULTURE & ORS

BETWEEN:

NICHOLAS PHILIP (OTHERWISE MARTIN) MAHER, MALACHY BRETT ANDRITA RYAN
APPELLANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RESPONDENTS

Citation:

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000

CONSTITUTION ART 15.2.1

CONSTITUTION ART 29.4.7

EEC REG 3950/92

EEC REG 1256/99

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 6

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 7(1)

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 8a

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 5(1)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 5(2)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 7

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 6

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 9

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 10

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 12

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 8

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 26

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 8b

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 26(5)

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 6(1)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 27(2)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 27(3)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 27(4)

EEC REG 3950/92 RECITAL 6

TREATY OF ROME ART 32

TREATY OF ROME ART 33(a)

TREATY OF ROME ART 33(b)

TREATY OF ROME ART 33(c)

TREATY OF ROME ART 33(d)

TREATY OF ROME ART 33(e)

TREATY OF ROME ART 33(2)

TREATY OF ROME ART 34

TREATY OF ROME ART 2

TREATY OF ROME ART 5

TREATY OF ROME ART 189

CONSTITUTION 29.4.3

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 S2

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 S3

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 S4

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMDT) ACT 1973 S1

MEAGHER V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1994 1 IR 329

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2

CONSTITUTION ART 43

DAIL DEBATES ON THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BILL

THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BILL 1971

CONSTITUTION ART 29.4.6

GREENE V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1990 2 IR 17

CITYVIEW PRESS LTD V ANCO 1980 IR 381

O'NEILL V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1997 2 ILRM 435

LAURENTIU V MIN FOR JUSTICE 2000 1 ILRM 1

MCDAID V SHEEDY 1991 1 IR 1

LOVETT V MIN FOR EDUCATION 1997 1 ILRM 89

ZUCCHERIFICI V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1979 ECR 2749

KJELL KIRLLSON V SVENSKA JORDBRUKSVERKET 2000 ECR I-2737

DOMINIKANERINNEN-KLOSTER ALTENHOHENAU 1995 ECR I-4069

R V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE EX PARTE BOSTOCK 1994 ECR I-955

DEMAND V HAUPTZOLLAMT TRIER 1998 ECR I-8529

DUFF V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1996 ECR 1569

CROTTY V AN TAOISEACH 1987 IR 713

DPP, PEOPLE V MCDONAGH 1996 1 IR 305

MCKENNA V AN TAOISEACH (NO 2) 1995 2 IR 10

HANAFIN V MIN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 1996 2 IR 321

PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 S3(2)

EAST DONEGAL CO-OPERATIVE LIVESTOCK MART LTD V AG 1970 IR 317

HARVEY V MIN FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 1992 IR 232

CONSTITUTION ART 15.1

CONSTITUTION ART 15.2

ERIDANIA V MIN OF AGRICULTURE 1979 ECR 2749

EEC REG 1256/99 ART 1(10)

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6(1)

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS PROTOCOL NO 1 ART 1

EEC REG 536/93

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 8a(b)

EEC REG 1256/99 ART 1(8)

EEC REG 1255/99

CONSTITUTION ART 5

CONSTITUTION ART 6

EEC REG 856/84

CONSTITUTION ART 29.7

CONSTITUTION ART 29.4.6

LAWLOR V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1990 1 IR 356

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 27

CONSTITUTION ART 15

IARNROD EIREANN V IRELAND 1996 3 IR 321 1995 2 ILRM 161

TREATY OF ROME ART 33(1)

BALKAN-IMPORT-EXPORT GMBH V HAUPTZOLLAMT BERLIN PACKHOF 1973 ECR 1091

VARIOLA V AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE 1973 ECR 981

EEC REG 3950/92 RECITAL 2

EEC REG 3950/92 RECITAL 4(4)

EEC REG 3950/92 RECITAL 4(5)

EEC REG 3950/92 RECITAL 4(6)

IRISH FARMERS ASSOCIATION V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1997 ECR I-1809

DECTSCHE MILCHKONTOR V GERMANY 1983 ECR 2633

KUHN V LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER WESER-EMS 1992 ECR I-35

HEMPENSTALL V MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT 1994 2 IR 20

PHEASANTRY, STATE V DONNELLY 1982 ILRM 512

HAND V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1991 1 IR 409

PRIVATE MOTORISTS PROVIDENT SOCIETY LTD V AG 1983 IR 339

JOHNSTON V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE RUC 1986 ECR 1651

EEC REG 804/68 ART 1a

NOLD V COMMISSION 1974 ECR 491

HAUER V LAND RHINLAND PFALZ 1979 ECR 3727

WASHAUF V BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT 1989 ECR 2609

SCHRADER HS KRAFTFUTTER GMBH V HAUPTOZOLLAMT GRONAU 1989 ECR 2237

CILFIT V MINISTRY FOR HEALTH 1982 ECR 3415

TREATY OF ROME ART 37

EEC REG 1079/99

BOZZETTI V INVERNIZZI 1985 ECR 2301

EEC REG 857/84 ART 7(1)

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 6(1)

SHEEHAN, STATE V GOVT OF IRELAND 1987 IR 555

CONSTITUTION ART 29.4.4

CONSTITUTION ART 29.4.5

TREATY OF ROME ART 249

TREATY OF ROME ART 10 (FORMER TREATY OF ROME ART 5)

ZERBONE V AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO SATATO 1978 ECR 99

TREATY OF ROME ART 234 (FORMER TREATY OF ROME ART 177)

R V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH 2001 1 AER 850

R V MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE EX PARTE H & R ECROYD HOLDINGS 1996 ECR I-2741

CONSTITUTION ART 29.6

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION 1992 ART 6

TREATY OF ROME ART 253

EEC REG 1374/84 ART 5

EEC REG 857/84 ART 7(3)

EEC REG 857/84 ART 4

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK LEVY) REGS 1985 SI 416/1985

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 1995 SI 266/1995

EEC REG 1256/99 ART 8

TREATY OF ROME ART 226

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 5

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 6(2)

RAUH V HAUPTZOLLAMT NURNBERG-FURTH 1991 ECR I-1647

VON DEETZEN V HAUPTZOLLAMP OLDENBERG 1991 ECR I-5119

EEC REG 2998/87 ART 1

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 6(2)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 1995 SI 266/1995 REG 16

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 27

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 27(1)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 27(5)

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 9

MACON V PREFET DE L'AISNE 1997 ECR I-5429

EEC REG 857/84 ART 12(C)

BALLMANN V HAUPTZOLLAMT OSNABRUCK 1991 ECR I-0025

INTERNATIONALE HANDELSGESELLSCHAFT MBH V EINFUHR 1970 ECR 1125

HAUER V LAND RHEINLAND-PFALZ 1979 ECR 3727

Synopsis

European Law

European law; delegated legislation; principles and policies; property rights; milk quotas; applicants had unsuccessfully challenged by way of judicial review validity of regulations restructuring milk quota regime made by respondent; whether detailed rules being made in the form of statutory instrument rather than act conflicts with exclusive legislative role of Oireachtas; whether choice of appropriate measures can be regarded as involving no determination of policy or principle; whether property rights of the applicants have been infringed under national law; whether there are property rights of the applicants which have been infringed under community law. Arts. 15.2.1 & 29.4.7 of the Constitution; S.I. 94/2000.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Maher v. Min for Agriculture - Supreme Court: Keane C.J., Denham J., Murphy J., Murray J., Fennelly J. - 30/03/2001 - [2001] 2 IR 158 - [2001] 2 ILRM 481

The applicants initiated proceedings seeking to challenge the validity of certain regulations dealing with "Milk Quota." Carroll J held that the regulations in question sought to regulate milk production and had taken into account the legitimate interests of parties. The proceedings would be dismissed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice held that the making of the regulations governing the milk quota scheme were a permissible exercise of the legislative function. The fact that the regulation of the milk production market could result in disadvantage to the applicants could not be described as a violation of property rights. Mrs. Justice Denham (with Mr. Justice Murphy) agreeing held that once principles and policies had been established by Community regulations there was no meaningful role for the national legislature. The milk quota scheme had arisen to regulate the European market the terms and conditions of which were constantly changing. Mr. Justice Murray held that the potential opportunity being sought by the applicants to sell their milk quota at 'market value' was not a property right. The Minister had a right and duty to exercise his lawful regulatory powers to ensure the proper functioning of the system. Mr Justice Fennelly held that the applicants' complaint that their fundamental rights, whether or not described as property rights, had been infringed by the 2000 Regulations was unsustainable as a matter clearly decided in the constant case-law of the Court of Justice. The appeal would be dismissed.

1

JUDGMENT delivered on the 30th day of March 2001byKeane CJ.

Introduction
2

What has become known as the milk quota system has given rise to much litigation, both at the level of the member States and in the Courts of Justice of the European Communities. The present case arises out of the making by the first named respondent (hereafter " theMinister") of the EuropeanCommunities ( Milk Quota) Regulations 2000 (S.I. No. 94 of 2000) (hereafter " S.I. 2000"). These provided for certain changes in the system which I shall endeavour to summarise at a later point. The validity of S. I. 2000 is challenged by the appellants on the ground that it constitutes the exercise of legislative power by the Minister contrary to Article 15.2.1° of the Constitution, violates the property rights of the applicants guaranteed by the Constitution and is not afforded immunity by the provisions of Article 29.4.7 of the Constitution, providing for the consequences of our accession to the European Economic Communities. The appellants' claim was dismissed in the High Court in a reserved judgment by Carroll J. and they have now appealed from that judgment and order to this court.

3

The milk quota scheme was first introduced in 1984 by the Council of EEC in order to cope...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • P.C. v Minister for Social Protection, Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 27 July 2017
    ...on the question of property rights. Counsel for the Minister referred to Maher & Others v. The Minister for Agriculture [2001] 2 I.R. 139 at p. 186-187, where Keane C.J. held there were no property rights in the then E.C. milk quota regime. The then Chief Justice held that, even if one......
  • Mcgrath Limestone Works Ltd v an Bord Pleanála and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 30 July 2014
    ...ILRM 400 1987/7/1798 MEAGHER v MIN FOR AGRICULTURE & ORS 1994 1 IR 329 1994 1 ILRM 1 MAHER & ORS v MIN FOR AGRICULTURE & ORS 2001 2 IR 139 Judicial Review – Environmental Impact Assessment – Consent – Planning and Development – Constitution – Practice and Procedure 2014/78JR &......
  • M.R v T.R, Anthony Walsh, David Walsh and Sims Clinic Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 November 2006
    ...TLR OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S58 OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S59 MAHER & ORS v MIN FOR AGRICULTURE & ORS 2001 2 IR 139 CAMPAIGN TO SEPARATE CHURCH & STATE LTD v MIN EDUCATION 1998 3 IR 321 1996 2 ILRM 241 CURTIN v DAIL EIREANN 2006 2 ILRM 99 CONSTITUTION A......
  • Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd v Minister for Communications
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 September 2019
    ...29, s. 4, sub-ss. 3, 4 and 5 immune from constitutional challenge.” 146 In its subsequent judgment in Maher v. Minister for Agriculture [2001] IESC 32, [2001] 2 I.R. 139, the Supreme Court reiterated that there are limits to the entitlement to make regulations under the European Communiti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Implementing community legislation into national law: the demands of a new legal order
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal Nbr. 2-4, July 2004
    • 1 July 2004
    ...in R. v. Secretary of State for Health [2001] 1 W.L.R. 127 at 138 (H.L.), cited by Fennelly J. in Maher v. Minister for Agriculture [2001] 2 I.R. 139 at 250 (H.C. & 4 Case C-285/93, Dominikanerinnen-Kloster Altenhohenau v. Hauptzollamt Rosenheim [1995] E.C.R. I-4069. 5Case C-197/96, Com......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT