Establishing Origin Mark Requirements for Imported Citrus Fruits: Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Ex P S P Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and Others

Establishing Origin Mark Requirements for Imported Citrus Fruits: Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Ex P S P Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and Others

Introduction

The case of Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Ex P S P Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and Others ([2001] UKHL 71) before the United Kingdom House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) addresses critical issues surrounding the importation of citrus fruits from the Northern part of Cyprus, officially known as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), into the United Kingdom. The dispute primarily revolves around the validity of phytosanitary certificates issued by non-origin authorities and the necessity of appropriate origin marks on imported goods as mandated by European Union (EU) directives. The parties involved include the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food as the respondent, and SP Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited along with other appellants challenging the import conditions imposed.

Summary of the Judgment

The House of Lords deliberated on the legality of accepting phytosanitary certificates issued by Turkish authorities for citrus fruits originating from the TRNC. Initially, the High Court invalidated such certificates, a decision upheld by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in R v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex p SP Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd (Case C-432/92) [1994] ECR 1-3087. The appellants subsequently sought to bypass this restriction by routing shipments through Turkey, obtaining certificates there before importing into the UK. The core issue addressed by the House of Lords was whether the requirement for an "appropriate origin mark" on packaging necessitated that such marks be affixed in the country of origin (Cyprus), thereby rendering Turkish-issued certificates insufficient.

Lord Slynn of Hadley, delivering the principal opinion, emphasized the importance of maintaining strict origin verification to prevent the introduction of harmful plant organisms into the Community. He underscored that the "appropriate origin mark" must be affixed in the country of origin to ensure authenticity and reliability. Contrary to the Advocate General's opinion, which suggested that the mark could potentially be affixed in a third country, Lord Slynn rejected this notion, advocating for origin marks to be established at the point of origin.

Lord Hope of Craighead, in his concurrence, expanded on the necessity of official statements to accompany origin marks and supported the view that these should be issued within the country of origin to uphold the integrity of plant health regulations.

Ultimately, the House of Lords decided to refer supplementary questions to the European Court of Justice to seek clarification on the interpretation of the "appropriate origin mark" and the role of official statements in this context. This indicates a nuanced approach, recognizing the complexity of integrating national and EU regulations while safeguarding plant health standards.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references two pivotal ECJ cases:

  • Anastasiou I (Case C-432/92): This case established that phytosanitary certificates must be issued by the competent authorities of the country of origin (Republic of Cyprus) for citrus fruits to be accepted in the UK, thereby rejecting certificates issued by non-origin countries like Turkey.
  • Anastasiou II (Case C-219/98): In response to a preliminary ruling request, the ECJ clarified that phytosanitary certificates from non-member countries could be accepted provided they are not subject to special requirements that can only be fulfilled in the country of origin.

These precedents are instrumental in shaping the legal framework within which the House of Lords navigated the present case, ensuring consistency in the application of EU directives and the protection of plant health within the Community.

Legal Reasoning

The crux of the legal reasoning lies in interpreting Council Directive 77/93/EEC (Plant Health Directive) and its amendments, particularly concerning the validity and origin of phytosanitary certificates and origin marks. The directives mandate that:

  • Phytosanitary certificates must be issued in the country of origin unless special conditions are met.
  • Packaging must bear an "appropriate origin mark" to ensure traceability and authenticity.

Lord Slynn emphasized that the purpose of these requirements is to prevent the entry of harmful plant organisms by ensuring that origin marks are reliable and established in the country of origin. He argued that allowing third countries to issue origin marks could compromise the effectiveness of plant health protections, as it dilutes the authenticity of the origin verification process.

Conversely, the Advocate General suggested that exceptions might exist under international comity, where non-origin countries issue certifications. However, Lord Slynn dismissed this, maintaining that only the country of origin possesses the necessary authority and reliability to affix appropriate origin marks.

Additionally, Lord Hope highlighted the importance of official statements accompanying origin marks, reinforcing that these statements must originate within the country of origin to ensure they carry the requisite authority and accuracy.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future importation practices, particularly regarding compliance with EU plant health regulations. Key impacts include:

  • Stringent Origin Verification: Importers must ensure that origin marks and phytosanitary certificates are issued by authoritative bodies within the country of origin, reinforcing the integrity of import controls.
  • Third-Party Certification Limitations: Countries seeking to export to the EU must align their certification processes with EU directives, potentially necessitating infrastructural and procedural changes to meet stringent origin verification standards.
  • Enhanced Plant Health Protection: By mandating origin marks to be affixed in the country of origin, the judgment strengthens the EU's defenses against introducing harmful plant organisms, thereby safeguarding agricultural and ecological interests.
  • Legal Precedent: The decision sets a strong legal precedent affirming the necessity of origin verification being conducted at the source, influencing similar cases and policy formulations within the EU and potentially in other jurisdictions with comparable regulatory frameworks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Phytosanitary Certificate

A phytosanitary certificate is an official document issued by a country's plant protection organization. It certifies that the plants or plant products in a shipment are free from specific pests and diseases and comply with the importing country's plant health regulations. This certificate is crucial for preventing the spread of harmful organisms across borders.

Origin Mark

An origin mark refers to the labeling on the packaging of goods indicating the country of origin. In the context of plant health, an "appropriate origin mark" ensures that the product's origin is accurately and reliably identified to facilitate traceability and verify compliance with import regulations.

EU Directives

EU directives are legal acts issued by the European Union that set out goals all member states must achieve. However, it is up to each country to devise its own laws on how to reach these goals. In this case, directives like Council Directive 77/93/EEC lay down standards for plant health to protect against the introduction of harmful organisms.

Conclusion

The judgment in Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Ex P S P Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and Others establishes a critical precedent emphasizing the necessity for origin marks and phytosanitary certificates to be authentically issued within the country of origin. By reinforcing the requirement that appropriate origin marks must be affixed in the source country, the House of Lords underscores the EU's commitment to stringent plant health protections. This decision not only affects importers and exporters of citrus fruits but also sets a benchmark for import regulations across various agricultural products. Moving forward, it ensures that the EU maintains robust defenses against the introduction of harmful organisms, safeguarding its agricultural integrity and ecological balance.

Case Details

Year: 2001
Court: United Kingdom House of Lords

Judge(s)

LORDS DECISIONSLORDS DECISIONS >>LORDSLORD SLYNN OF HADLEY LORD STEYN LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEADLORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENTLORD SLYNN OF HADLEYLORDS,JUSTICE ON 5 JULY 1994 HELD THAT THE EUROPEAN-CYPRUS ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT OF 1972 IN RESPECT OF THE MOVEMENT CERTIFICATE, AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 77/93/EEC (OJ 1977 NO L26/20), AS AMENDED, ON "PROTECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE COMMUNITY OF ORGANISMS HARMFUL TO PLANTS OR PLANT PRODUCTS AND AGAINST THEIR SPREAD WITHIN THE COMMUNITY", IN RESPECT OF THE PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATE, COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED IN RESPECT OF CITRUS FRUITS AND POTATOES IMPORTED FROM THE TRNC UNLESS THEY WERE ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS: R V MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD, EX P SP ANASTASIOU (PISSOURI) LTD (CASE C-432/92) [1994] ECR 1-3087.JUSTICE IN REPLY TO QUESTIONS REFERRED BY YOUR LORDSHIPS HOUSE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EC TREATY REPLIED BY JUDGMENT OF 4 JULY 2000 (CASE C-219/98) THAT THE SAID COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 77/93/EEC, AS AMENDEDLORDSHIPS THE APPELLANTS CONTENDED THAT THE CITRUS FRUITS IN QUESTION WERE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD ONLY BE SATISFIED IN THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. WITHOUT SUCH CERTIFICATE THEY COULD NOT BE IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM.LORDSHIPS ON THE PREVIOUS OCCASION. THE APPELLANTS CANNOT RAISE THE ISSUE WITHOUT LEAVE AND THE RESPONDENT OPPOSES THE GRANT OF LEAVE. THE AMENDMENTS WERE ONLY PUBLISHED ON 8 JANUARY 1998 SHORTLY BEFORE THE HEARING IN ANASTASIOU NO 2 AND IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT THEY WERE OVERLOOKED. I CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE HERE RELEVANT ARGUMENTS WHICH COULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE EVENTUAL DECISION AS TO WHETHER CITRUS FRUIT CAN OR MUST BE ALLOWED ENTRY INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM.LORDSHIPS.LORDSHIPS' CONCLUSIONS THE PARTIES MAY, BEFORE THE FINAL ORDER FOR REFERENCE IS DRAWN UP, MAKE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THE HOUSE AS TO THE CONTENT OF THESE QUESTIONS IF THEY WISH TO DO SO. THE MATTER WILL THEN COME BACK BEFORE THE HOUSE WHEN THE REPLY OF THE EUROPEAN COURT HAS BEEN RECEIVED.LORD STEYNLORDS,LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY AND LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD. IN A FINELY BALANCED CASE I AM PERSUADED BY THE REASONS GIVEN BY LORD SLYNN AND I WOULD MAKE THE ORDER HE PROPOSES.LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEADLORDS,JUSTICE HELD THAT COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 77/93/EEC OF 21 DECEMBER 1976 ON PROTECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE COMMUNITY OF ORGANISMS HARMFUL TO PLANTS OR PLANT PRODUCTS AND AGAINST THEIR SPREAD WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ("THE PLANT HEALTH DIRECTIVE"), AS AMENDED BY INTER ALIA COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 91/683/EEC AND COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 92/103/EEC, PRECLUDED THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE OF PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY AUTHORITIES OTHER THAN THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS WHERE CITRUS FRUIT IS IMPORTED FROM THE NORTHERN PART OF CYPRUS. IT WAS IN THE LIGHT OF THAT JUDGMENT THAT THE EXPORTERS OF THE CITRUS FRUIT FROM THE NORTHERN PART OF CYPRUS MADE THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE INSPECTION OF THE CARGO IN A TURKISH PORT AND THE ISSUING OF PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATES THERE WHICH HAVE LED TO THESE FURTHER STAGES IN THIS PROTRACTED DISPUTE.LORDSHIPS REFERRED FIVE QUESTIONS TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EC TREATY (NOW ARTICLE 234 EC) ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PLANT HEALTH DIRECTIVE RELATING TO THE ACCEPTANCE BY A MEMBER STATE OF PLANTS ORIGINATING IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES WHICH WERE ACCOMPANIED BY A PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATE NOT ISSUED BY THE NON-MEMBER COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. THE ESSENTIAL ISSUE RAISED BY THESE QUESTIONS WAS WHETHER, IF THE CITRUS FRUIT COULD NOT LAWFULLY BE IMPORTED DIRECTLY INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM WITH PHYTOSANITORY CERTIFICATES ISSUED IN THE NORTHERN PART OF CYPRUS, THEY COULD LAWFULLY BE IMPORTED HERE IF THEY WERE SENT FIRST TO A TURKISH PORT FROM WHICH, BACKED BY PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATES ISSUED IN THAT PORT, THEY WERE SENT ON TO THIS COUNTRY.LORDSHIPS' HOUSE. THIS WAS WHETHER THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENT IN ITEM 16.1 OF ANNEX IV, PART A OF THE PLANT HEALTH DIRECTIVE THAT THE PACKAGING OF CITRUS FRUITS BEAR AN APPROPRIATE ORIGIN MARK REQUIRES AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF ORIGIN TO BE MADE IN ALL CASES WHERE CITRUS FRUIT IS INTRODUCED INTO THE COMMUNITY FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES. LEAVE WAS GIVEN TO ALL PARTIES TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS ON THIS QUESTION, AND YOUR LORDSHIPS ARE NOW IN A POSITION TO GIVE JUDGMENT ON IT HAVING HEARD FURTHER ARGUMENT.LORDSHIPS ON 25 JUNE 2001 MR VAUGHAN SOUGHT LEAVE TO RAISE YET ANOTHER ISSUE. HE REFERRED TO AN AMENDMENT WHICH WAS MADE TO THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CITRUS FRUITS IN ANNEX IV, PART A OF THE PLANT HEALTH DIRECTIVE BY COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 98/2/EC OF 8 JANUARY 1998. THE QUESTION WHICH HE SOUGHT TO RAISE WAS WHETHER THE EFFECT OF THIS AMENDMENT WAS THAT CITRUS FRUIT ORIGINATING IN THE NORTHERN PART OF CYPRUS MAY ONLY BE ACCEPTED INTO THE COMMUNITY IF IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT THAT THE FRUIT ORIGINATES IN CYPRUS WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE PLACE OF ORIGIN. MR ROTH FOR THE RESPONDENT AND MR BELOFF FOR THE INTERVENERS BOTH SUBMITTED THAT LEAVE TO RAISE THIS FURTHER ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. BUT, AS IT HAD BEEN ADDRESSED BY ALL PARTIES IN THEIR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THEY WERE CONTENT THAT YOUR LORDSHIPS SHOULD NEVERTHELESS HEAR ARGUMENT ON THE POINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER LEAVE TO RAISE IT SHOULD BE GIVEN.LORDSHIPS' JUDGMENT OF 20 MAY 1998. THE APPELLANTS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY THEN TO RAISE THIS POINT, BUT THEY DID NOT DO SO. NOR DID THEY BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH TOOK PLACE THERE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE QUESTIONS MENTIONED IN THAT JUDGMENT. THEIR EXPLANATION IS THAT THE DIRECTIVE ESCAPED THEIR NOTICE, AS IT WAS NOT PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL UNTIL AFTER THEY HAD SUBMITTED THEIR WRITTEN CASE TO THIS HOUSE.LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY THAT BOTH THE ISSUE UNDER ITEM 16.1 AND THE RELATED QUESTION IN RESPECT OF THE SUBSEQUENT ITEMS SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BY YOUR LORDSHIPS.LORDSHIPS' HOUSE TO VARIOUS FACTS WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED BY THEM IN THEIR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THE EUROPEAN COURT. THESE PROVIDE IMPORTANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE SYSTEM OF PLANT PROTECTION THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND HELP TO PUT THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENT AS TO THE MARK OF ORIGIN INTO ITS PROPER CONTEXT.LORD SLYNN'S SPEECH IN DRAFT, AND I AM AWARE THAT YOUR LORDSHIPS DO NOT SHARE MY OPINION ON THIS ISSUE. BUT, FOR THE REASONS WHICH I HAVE GIVEN, I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THAT THE MEANING WHICH YOUR LORDSHIPS WISH TO GIVE TO THE PHRASE IS ACTE CLAIR. WITH VERY GREAT REGRET THEREFORE I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE QUESTION AS TO THE MEANING WHICH IS TO BE GIVEN TO THIS PHRASE IN ITEM 16.1 OF ANNEX IV, PART A OF THE PLANT HEALTH DIRECTIVE, BOTH IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM AND AS AMENDED BY COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 98/2/EC, MUST BE REFERRED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 234 EC.LORDSHIPS.LORD SLYNN.

Comments