“2. SA CERTIFICATION LTD shall undertake the functions of a control body required under the assimilated EU Regulations. In relation to any individual operator in respect of which SA CERTIFICATION LTD acts as a control body, the control body’s activities are referred to in this document as “licensing”, and like terms in this document should be construed accordingly. The approval certified in this document in respect of SA CERTIFICATION LTD is limited to licensing the scopes of operation accredited by UKAS and indicated in the accreditation schedule on the UKAS website … 4. As a control body, subject to the approval continuing in effect SA CERTIFICATION LTD has the powers and functions provided for in regulations 3(2) and 5 of theOrganic Products Regulations 2009 , and in addition to those functions and the functions referred to in paragraph 2 above, Defra delegates the further function of receiving applications made under Articles 36 and 37 of assimilated Commission Regulation 889/2008 to reduce conversion periods required under Article 17 of assimilated Council Regulation 834/2007, so far as they may be exercised in respect of the operations described in Paragraph 2 above.”
“7. SA CERTIFICATION LTD will provide Defra with the following information: By the tenth day of each month, details of new licensees, suspensions and terminations for the previous month. Defra requires this information to monitor the situation concerning organic operators. By 31 January at the latest each year, a list of their licensees as at 31 December of the previous year (using Form A1 attached at Annex 3 to this document). This is required by Article 27(14) of assimilated Council Regulation 834/2007. By16 February 2025 at the latest, a summary report of the control activities carried out during the previous year, including information on its licensees and control system and details of any non-compliances as requested (using Templates 1A, 1B and 1C attached at Annex 3 to this document). This is required by Article 27(14) of assimilated Council Regulation 834/2007. By16 February 2025 at the latest, details of the standard control procedure to be followed, including a detailed description of the control measures and precautions SA CERTIFICATION LTD undertakes to impose on its licensees (using Form C1 attached at Annex 3 to this document). This is required by Article 27 of assimilated Council Regulation 834/2007. By16 February 2025 at the latest, details of the measures SA CERTIFICATION LTD applied where irregularities and/ or infringements are found (using Form C1 attached at Annex 3). This is required by Article 30 of assimilated Council Regulation 834/2007. … 9. SA CERTIFICATION LTD shall ensure that it has suitable arrangements with its licensees for the tracing of products at all stages of production, preparation and distribution as referred to in Article 27(13) of assimilated Council Regulation 834/2007. 10. SOIL ASSOCIATION CERTIFICATION LTD will provide its licensees with documentary evidence as provided in Article 29 of assimilated Council Regulation 834/2007 and Article 68 and Annex XII of assimilated Commission Regulation 889/2008 that they meet the organic standards laid down in assimilated Council Regulation 834/2007 in respect of which they are licensed by the control body. 11. SA CERTIFICATION LTD will provide information to other competent authorities, control authorities or organic control bodies as provided in Article 31 of assimilated Council Regulation 834/2007 and Article 92 of assimilated Commission Regulation 889/2008 and shall ensure that its terms of licensing are such that it has any necessary consents to use and disclose information it is required under the assimilated EU Regulations to disclose to Defra or other competent authorities acting pursuant to the assimilated EU Regulations.”
“RECITALS A. … B. SA Cert is an accredited certification body for the delivery of certification under a number of regulations and standards including but not limited to EU Organic Regulations (EC) 834/2007 & 889/2008 as retained in the UK, Soil Association standards, Forest Stewardship Council® (“FSC®”) FSC Licence Code FSC® A000525, Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (“PEFC™”) PEFC™ Licence Code PEFC/16-44-917, UK Woodland Carbon Code, Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) and COSMOS-standard and their amendments. C. The Client is desirous of achieving certification to the Qualifying Standards and on the terms and conditions as set out in this agreement. D. SA Cert has agreed to evaluate the Client on the terms as set out in this Agreement to consider, and if thought fit, to issue a Certificate of Registration. 1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION … “Evaluation” - an evaluation of the Client by SA Cert against the Qualifying Standards which may include any number of Audits; … “Qualifying Standards” - the standards to which the Client makes an application for certification and from time to time published or updated. The Qualifying Standards will set out which Scheme Logos or Trademarks the Client is permitted to use, and the Client will be required to comply with the Qualifying Standards at all times; … 3. BASIS OF AGREEMENT 3.1 SA Cert has agreed to enter into this Agreement to carry out an Evaluation of the Client, to determine whether the necessary Qualifying Standards have been met and to consider issuing a Certificate of Registration. The Evaluation shall continue throughout the term of this Agreement. … 3.3 The Client agrees to supply SA Cert with such details as it may require to certify the Client in accordance with the Qualifying Standards and allow the issue of a Certificate of Registration…. … 3.5 SA Cert and the Scheme Owner reserve the right to revise the requirements of the certification and/or the Qualifying Standards from time to time upon reasonable notice to the Client. If the Client fails to comply with the Qualifying Standards, then SA Cert may either amend, suspend or revoke the Certificate of Registration in whole or in part or terminate this Agreement. … 5. CLIENT OBLIGATIONS 5.1 The Client shall: 5.1.1. comply in all respects with the Qualifying Standards; … 5.1.7 Permit SA Cert, SA Cert’s Accreditors, and/or Scheme Owners access to the Sites, documents, equipment, records (including complaints), contractors, and personnel that SA Cert or its Accreditors or Scheme Owners determine necessary to access. Such visits will be during normal working hours and may be made at short notice or without prior notice to check compliance with the Qualifying Standards or, for example, in response to complaints received by SA Cert, Accreditors, and/or Scheme Owners; 5.1.8 Permit SA Cert, SA Cert’s Accreditors, and/or Scheme Owners to enter the Sites (or procure that SA Cert, SA Cert’s Accreditors, and/or Scheme Owners may enter any Sites not owned or occupied by the Client) and take any required samples for analysis at any reasonable time without prior notice; 5.2 In the event that a Certificate of Registration is suspended or revoked by SA Cert or this Agreement is terminated for any reason by either party, the Client shall co-operate with SA Cert and (at the Client’s own expense) shall (or shall procure that such actions are taken where required) immediately upon notice from SA Cert to the Client: 5.2.1 cease to make or allow to be made any use of the Scheme Logo, Trademarks, or SA Cert's Intellectual Property Rights; 5.2.2 cease to sell or allow to be sold any products which are labelled or marked using the Scheme Logos or Trademarks; 5.2.3 cease to make any claims that imply that the Client or anything it produces, or allows to be produced, complies with the requirements of the Qualifying Standards; 5.2.4 cease to make any claims or references to the Qualifying Standards and withdraw any existing marketing material that makes such a claim or reference; 5.2.5 remove all uses of SA Cert's Intellectual Property, the Scheme Logos, or Trademarks.” 5.1.1. comply in all respects with the Qualifying Standards; … 5.1.7 Permit SA Cert, SA Cert’s Accreditors, and/or Scheme Owners access to the Sites, documents, equipment, records (including complaints), contractors, and personnel that SA Cert or its Accreditors or Scheme Owners determine necessary to access. Such visits will be during normal working hours and may be made at short notice or without prior notice to check compliance with the Qualifying Standards or, for example, in response to complaints received by SA Cert, Accreditors, and/or Scheme Owners; 5.1.8 Permit SA Cert, SA Cert’s Accreditors, and/or Scheme Owners to enter the Sites (or procure that SA Cert, SA Cert’s Accreditors, and/or Scheme Owners may enter any Sites not owned or occupied by the Client) and take any required samples for analysis at any reasonable time without prior notice; 5.2.1 cease to make or allow to be made any use of the Scheme Logo, Trademarks, or SA Cert's Intellectual Property Rights; 5.2.2 cease to sell or allow to be sold any products which are labelled or marked using the Scheme Logos or Trademarks; 5.2.3 cease to make any claims that imply that the Client or anything it produces, or allows to be produced, complies with the requirements of the Qualifying Standards; 5.2.4 cease to make any claims or references to the Qualifying Standards and withdraw any existing marketing material that makes such a claim or reference; 5.2.5 remove all uses of SA Cert's Intellectual Property, the Scheme Logos, or Trademarks.”
“The purpose of this contract is for organic Control Bodies to provide certain information to Defra to assist the Department to meet legal requirements under Retained Regulation No 834/2007, Retained Regulation No 889/2008 and Retained Regulation No 1235/2008 on organic food and farming and generally to assist with the governance of the organic food and farming sector in GB”
“1) Reports of all inspections carried out on or in relation to Scottish salmon farms, by Soil Association Certification Limited (“SAC”), its servants or agents, pursuant to SAC’s role as a control body under assimilated EU Regulation (EC) 834/2007 (certification of organic foods etc) covering the last 3 years to date; and 2) referring to SA Certification's Organic Standards for Great Britain Aquaculture Version 1.4, as published on21st March 2024 , Standard 12.6.1, pages 14-15, details of any “major non-compliance”, “critical non-compliance”, “manifest infringement” and “severe or repeated non-compliance” in relation to any Scottish salmon farm, as found by, or reported to SAC, its servants or agents, covering the last 3 years to date.”
“increased public access to environmental information and the dissemination of such information contribute to a greater awareness of environmental matters, a free exchange of views, more effective participation by the public in environmental decision-making and, eventually, to a better environment.”
“(23) Since the objectives of the proposed Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.”
“citizens must have access to information, be entitled to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters … improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns.”
“’Public authority’ means: (a) Government at national, regional or other level; (b) Natural or legal persons performing public administrative functions under national law; including specific duties, activities or services in relation to the environment; (c) Any other natural or legal persons having public responsibilities or functions, or providing public services, in relation to the environment, under the control of a body or person falling within subparagraphs (a) or (b) above; (d) …”
“There are two key differences between this subparagraph and the others. One key difference between subparagraph (c) and (b) is the source of authority of the person performing public functions or providing public services. It can be distinguished from subparagraph (b) in that the bodies addressed derive their authority not from national legislation, but indirectly through control by those defined in subparagraphs (a) and (b). … The second key difference distinguishes subparagraph (c) from both previous subparagraphs. While subparagraphs (a) and (b) define as public authorities bodies and persons without limitation as to the particular field of activities, this subparagraph does so limit the scope of the definition. Only persons performing public responsibilities or functions or providing public services in relation to the environment can be public authorities under this subparagraph.”
“may be regarded as an explanatory document, capable of being taken into consideration, if appropriate, among other relevant material for the purpose of interpreting the convention.”
““Public authority” shall mean: (b) Any natural or legal person performing public administrative functions under national law, including specific duties, activities or services in relation to the environment.”
“Provisions of Community Law must be consistent with that Convention with a view to its conclusion by the European Community.”
“To take account of the principle in Article 6 of the Treaty, that environmental protection requirements should be integrated into the definition and implementation of Community policies and activities, the definition of public authorities should be expanded so as to encompass government or other public administration at national, regional or local level whether or not they have specific responsibilities for the environment. The definition should likewise be expanded to include other persons or bodies performing public administrative functions in relation to the environment under national law, as well as other persons or bodies acting under their control and having public responsibilities or functions in relation to the environment.”
“Applicants should be able to seek an administrative or judicial review of the acts or omissions of a public authority in relation to a request.”
“Since the objectives of the proposed Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.”
“(c) any other body or other person, that carries out functions of public administration”
“48. It follows that only entities which, by virtue of the legal basis specifically defined in the national legislation which is applicable to them, are empowered to perform public administrative functions are capable of falling within the category of public authorities that is referred to in article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2003/4. On the other hand, the question of whether the functions vested in such entities under national law constitute ‘public administrative functions’ within the meaning of that provision must be examined in the light of European Union Law and of the relevant interpretative criteria provided by the Aarhus Convention for establishing an autonomous and uniform definition of that concept. 50. In addition, the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide explains that ‘a function normally performed by governmental authorities as determined according to national law’ is involved but it does not necessarily have to relate to the environmental field as that field was mentioned only by way of example of a public administrative function. 52. The second category of public authorities, defined in Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2003/4 concerns administrative authorities defined in functional terms, namely entities, be they legal persons governed by public law or by private law, which are entrusted, under the legal regime which is applicable to them, with the performance of services of public interest, inter alia in the environmental field, and which are, for this purpose, vested with special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between persons governed by private law.”
“A relevant undertaker may be authorised by the Secretary of State to purchase compulsorily any land anywhere in England and Wales which is required by the undertaker for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of its functions.”
“Section 155 is supplemented by Schedule 11, which deals with the process by which the companies may apply to the Secretary of State for authorisation, the Secretary of State’s powers, and compensation. Mr de la Mare called such powers contingent powers, whilst Ms Proops preferred tandem powers, but labels do not matter. What matters are the practical benefits that this power gives to the companies. There are at least two. One is what Mr Wolfe called the power to promote the exercise of the power. The formal process confers an advantage that is not generally available. In addition to the formal process, it provides the opportunity, which any sensible company would surely take, of checking first with officials on the likely response to an application, thereby conferring privileged access to those who will advise the Secretary of State. The other benefit is the leverage that the power confers in commercial negotiations. The evidence showed that section 155 is little used. It is, however, always present as a fall back if a company is unable to secure agreement by negotiation. We were not given evidence that this occurs, but it is a fact of commercial life that these purchases take place ‘under the shadow of compulsion’ (Megarry and Wade, The Law of Real Property 6th edition at 22-056). For these reasons, we reject Mr de la Mare’s argument that the Secretary of State’s involvement prevents the compulsory powers under section 155 being special powers.”
“He made this point in relation to the companies’ power under section 157 of WIA to make byelaws in respect of the public use of their land or waterways. Section 157(3)(d) provides that byelaws can provide for a contravention to constitute a criminal offence. As Mr de la Mare pointed out, this power is subject to Schedule 10, which provides that byelaws have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. He argued that the section merely gave the companies power to do what any private landowner might want to do – to provide access on terms that protect the land itself and other users of it. The criminal sanction, he went on, merely ensures that the companies are not left without effective powers of enforcement. We do not accept that. We leave aside the value of the opportunity to promote the exercise of the Secretary of State’s power; we have already dealt with that point. The point we wish to make here is that Mr de la Mare’s argument misunderstands the nature of powers under the CJEU’s judgment. The characterisation of the powers to which the CJEU referred (special – beyond the rules of private law) is not limited to activities or outcomes, but includes the means by which they may be secured. The power not only to promote the making of a byelaw, but the making of a byelaw breach of which constitutes a criminal offence, is not a power that is available under private law. It is not comparable to the private landowner’s power to enforce a licence to enter on and enjoy land through the civil law.”
“Mr de la Mare gave the example of the duty under section45 of WIA to provide a connection. Section 45 provides for a number of conditions that can be imposed for complying with that duty. Looked at in isolation, section 45 appears to confer a range of powers that would not be available under private law. Seen in their full context, however, these are not powers but part and parcel of the duty to connect. They operate together to create a qualified duty.”
“That was not how the Court approached it. It did not seek to classify powers as State power or other powers. The judgment directs the national courts to compare the powers in question with those that arise from the rules of private law. That is a different exercise, with a different point of reference. For this reason, we do not consider it safe to rely on the reasoning of the Advocate General in the passages we have cited.”
“119. … The test refers to the powers that result from those rules, not to the powers that could result from the exercise of those rules. In none of the other language versions that we have consulted is there any suggestion that the appropriate comparator is the possible result of the exercise of the rules. … 121. The rules of private law include those of contract and property. They are essentially facilitative, allowing the parties to fix the terms on which they are willing to enter into a relationship. They are able to fix the terms of their contracts and to choose which rights of property to create from those recognised by law. They give the parties the power to negotiate and agree. The correlative is that they give a party the power to refuse to engage and to obstruct. Mr de la Mare’s argument overlooks that important difference. The companies have the power to compel or, in the case of a tandem power (to adopt Ms Proops’ phrase), effectively to compel. It may be that they do not have to use that power often, but it confers an important benefit that saves the need for the companies to negotiate in appropriate cases and, even if they were minded to do so, it could have an overweening effect on the course of the negotiations. 122. The law of property does recognise some rights that have not arisen from consent. For example: an easement may arise by implication or by prescription. The techniques by which it does so are instructive. Despite the fact that the court is imposing an analysis on the parties, the rules operate on the basis of assumed consent or acquiescence. Often, these are ways in which the law regularises activity for which no legal basis can be identified. As such, they arise only after an activity has become an established usage. 123. Moreover, Mr de la Mare’s argument only works because of the level of generality with which it is presented. It fails to take account of the personal equation. At what price would a landowner be prepared to allow pipes to be laid? Over what route? When would access be allowed for the work or for repairs – only at weekends, during school holidays or after the harvest is safely gathered in? The element of compulsion allows the companies effectively to override the individuality that can be a feature of the exercise of private law powers. 124. The rules of private law are not merely facilitative. They can also regulate what the parties may and may not do within a relationship. There are rules of public policy, rules about the validity and interpretation of exclusion clauses, and so on. They may be stated in the most general terms, but they usually operate within existing relationships. They may also operate where no legal relationship exists. For a common law example, take the right of self-help allowing access to another’s land in order to abate a nuisance. For a statutory example, take theAccess to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 . This allows landowners to gain access to neighbouring land in order to preserve their property. But even in these examples, the operation of the rule is narrowly confined by reference to the existing proximity of the land. 125. In contrast, some of the powers given to the companies operate outside any existing relationship and without any practical limit….”
“33. Later at paragraph 67, when it is dealing with the issue of control and reflecting paragraphs 50 and 51, the CJEU said: “67. Thus, in defining three categories of public authorities, Article 2(2) of the Directive 2003/4 is intended to cover a set of entities, whatever their legal form, that must be regarded as constituting public authority, be it the State itself, an entity empowered by the State to act on its behalf or an entity controlled by the State.” 34. These citations show and confirm the hierarchy of the provisions of the Directive and the EIR. They also reflect the purposes set out in the quotation from the UNECE guide and recital (11) to the Directive cited above. 35. The CJEU describe the first two stages using the neutral expression “entities” which are organically or functionally administrative authorities. 36. The hierarchy or structure of the Directive is an important factor to be taken into account when determining whether entities are administrative authorities that fall within the definition of public authorities. It provides a further indication that if, at the functional stage, the functions or services of public interest with which the relevant entity is entrusted do not have a sufficient link with the public administration or executive of the State at national or local levels it would be surprising if the Directive and the EIR applied to the environmental information held by that entity, even though there was a strong public interest in it being disclosed because, for example, it was used by a public figure who benefitted from public funding. 37. The language relating to the links in the chain of the hierarchy or structure differ between the Directive and the EIR. Articles 2(2)(b) and (c) of the Directive both make reference to the environment whereas regulation 2(2)(c) of the EIR does not. 38. However, there is no effective difference between an entity “performing public administrative functions” (the language of the Directive) and an entity that “carries out public administration” (the language of the EIR). So this language of the EIR replicates the functional test under Article 2(2)(b) of the Directive at the Regulation 2(2)(c) stage of the hierarchy or structure of the EIR. 39. Paragraph 52 of the judgment of the CJEU describes that functional test. The second part of the paragraph has to be read with, and is informed by, the overarching description of the entities as administrative authorities. Paragraph 52 provides that it is the combination of the following that makes an entity a functional administrative authority, and therefore a public authority: i) the entity is a legal person governed by public or private law, ii) the legal regime applicable to it has entrusted it with the performance of services of public interest, inter alia in the environmental field, andiii) it has been vested with special powers. 40. In our view, applying the description or test in paragraph 52 of Fish Legal (EU): i) the special powers also have to be vested in the entity by the legal regime applicable to that entity, and ii) it is the vesting of special powers that makes a service of public interest an administrative function that counts or qualifies in determining whether the entity is an administrative authority (and so a public authority under the functional definition). … 93. Linkage between organic and functional public authorities. The opening reference in paragraph 52 of Fish Legal CJEU to “administrative authorities defined in functional terms” provides a clear link between a public authority at the second tier of the hierarchy and the entities which, organically, are administrative authorities at the first tier of the hierarchy. This isbecause it states that this category again concerns administrative authorities but defined in functional terms rather than by an organic approach. 94. In our view, this means that what the entity does must have a sufficient connection with what entities that are organically part of the administration or the executive of the state do. 95. In our view, by paragraph 52 of Fish Legal CJEU the CJEU captures the need for this link by referring to entities (a) being entrusted with the performance of services of public interest, and (b) being vested with special powers. That combination is important because it is what makes a service of public interest one that counts or qualifies in determining whether the entity is an administrative authority and so a public authority under the functional definition (see [39] and [40] above). 96. In our view, the use of these combined factors to describe what counts or qualifies for consideration under the functional test means that it is not appropriate to proceed on the basis that the CJEU was referring to services of public interest in a way in which it has used that description and “services of general economic interest” in other contexts. However, this does not mean that those contexts do not on an application of a Community law approach inform what are and are not the functions and special powers that together mean that the relevant entity is within the functional definition of an administrative authority and of a public authority. 97. It follows that we do not accept the submission made on behalf of the Cabinet Office that “services of public interest” was used in a special sense by the CJEU. Rather, it was stating that the combination of what the relevant entity is entrusted to perform (services of public interest) and the special powers given to it to assist it to do so is what has to be considered in determining whether the entity is a public authority. 98. The applicable legal regime. As mentioned in [40] above, we consider that both the services of public interest and the special powers must be entrusted to and vested in the relevant entity by the legal regime applicable to that entity. In our view, this linkage points to a conclusion that the combination of the performance of the services entrusted to an entity and the powers vested in it to perform those services (in the words of paragraph 52 “for this purpose”) must provide a sufficient connection between what entities that are organically part of the administration or the executive of a state do and what entities that qualify under the functional test do. So here the combination of the functions, services and powers relied on must provide a sufficient link between (a) the Sovereign, and (b) the Crown in the sense of government. 99. Rigidity/flexibility. In our view, the general approach to the interpretation of a Directive and Regulations to implement it carries over to the interpretation and application of the functional test as set or described by the CJEU with the result that the CJEU description should not be applied in place of the tests set by the Directive and the EIR. Rather, it is important and binding guidance on what those tests mean and how they are to be applied, and like the test set by the Directive, the test set by the CJEU (which contains concepts and words that have a range of meaning) should be applied so as to give effect to the underlying objectives and purposes of the Directive including those relating to its breadth and the public interest in environmental information being made available to the public. 100. It follows that the CJEU test should not be applied rigidly or without reference to, and a cross-check with, both the words of the Directive and the EIR and their underlying objectives and purposes. That cross check involves standing back and asking whether in all the circumstances of the case the combination of what are, or are arguably, the factors identified by the CJEU in its test result in the relevant entity being a functional public authority. The key issue on that approach is whether taking these factors together there is a sufficient connection between the Sovereign’s Functions and Powers that are relied on and what entities that organically are part of the administration or the executive of a state do.” “67. Thus, in defining three categories of public authorities, Article 2(2) of the Directive 2003/4 is intended to cover a set of entities, whatever their legal form, that must be regarded as constituting public authority, be it the State itself, an entity empowered by the State to act on its behalf or an entity controlled by the State.”
“(1) For the purposes of this Regulation a product shall be regarded as bearing terms referring to the organic production method where, in the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents, such a product, its ingredients or feed materials are described in terms suggesting to the purchaser that the product, its ingredients or feed materials have been obtained in accordance with the rules laid down in this Regulation. In particular, the terms listed in the Annex, their derivatives or diminutives, such as ‘bio’ and ‘eco’, alone or combined, may be used... for the labelling and advertising of products which satisfy the requirements set out under or pursuant to this Regulation. … (2) The terms referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be used ... for the labelling, advertising and commercial documents of a product which does not satisfy the requirements set out under this Regulation, … Furthermore, any terms, including terms used in trademarks, or practices used in labelling or advertising liable to mislead the consumer or user by suggesting that a product or its ingredients satisfy the requirements set out under this Regulation shall not be used.”
“the control body communicates the results of the controls carried out to the competent authority on a regular basis and whenever the competent authority so requests. If the results of the controls indicate non-compliance or point to the likelihood of non-compliance, the control body shall immediately inform the competent authority;”
“… the competent authority shall: (a) ensure that the controls carried out by the control body are objective and independent; (b) verify the effectiveness of its controls; (c) take cognisance of any irregularities or infringements found and corrective measures applied; (d) withdraw approval of that body where it fails to satisfy the requirements referred to in (a) and (b) or no longer fulfils the criteria indicated in paragraph 5, 6 or fails to satisfy the requirements laid down in paragraphs 11, 12 and 14.”
“The control authorities and the control bodies referred to in Article 27(4) shall provide documentary evidence to any such operator who is subject to their controls and who in the sphere of his activities, meets the requirements laid down in this Regulation. The documentary evidence shall at least permit the identification of the operator and the type or range of products as well as the period of validity”
“1. For plants and plant products to be considered organic, the production rules as referred to in Articles 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Chapter 1 of this Regulation and where applicable the exceptional production rules in Chapter 6 of this Regulation must have been applied on the parcels during a conversion period of at least two years before sowing, or, in the case of grassland or perennial forage, at least two years before its use as feed from organic farming, or, in the case of perennial crops other than forage, at least three years before the first harvest of organic products. 2. The competent authority may decide to recognise retroactively as being part of the conversion period any previous period in which: (a) the land parcels were subject of measures defined in a programme implemented pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, or in another official programme, provided that the measures concerned ensure that products not authorised for organic production have not been used on those parcels, or (b) the parcels were natural or agricultural areas which were not treated with products not authorised for organic production. The period referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph can be taken into consideration retroactively only where satisfactory proof has been furnished to the competent authority allowing it to satisfy itself that the conditions were met for a period of at least three years. 3. The competent authority may decide, in certain cases, where the land had been contaminated with products not authorised for organic production, to extend the conversion period beyond the period referred to in paragraph 1. 4. In the case of parcels which have already been converted to or were in the process of conversion to organic farming, and which are treated with a product not authorised for organic production, the relevant authority may shorten the conversion period referred to in paragraph 1 in the following two cases: (a) parcels treated with a product not authorised for organic production as part of a compulsory disease or pest control measure imposed by the competent authority ...; (b) parcels treated with a product not authorised for organic production as part of scientific tests approved by the competent authority .... In the cases provided for in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph, the length of the conversion period shall be fixed taking into account of the following factors: (a) the process of degradation of the product concerned shall guarantee, at the end of the conversion period, an insignificant level of residues in the soil and, in the case of a perennial crop, in the plant; (b) the harvest following the treatment may not be sold with reference to organic production methods.”
“1. The conversion rules as referred to in Article 36 of this Regulation shall apply to the whole area of the production unit on which animal feed is produced. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraph 1, the conversion period may be reduced to one year for pasturages and open air areas used by non-herbivore species. This period may be reduced to six months where the land concerned has not during the last year, received treatments with products not authorised for organic production.”
“1. The operator shall: (a) give the control authority or control body, for control purposes, access to all parts of the unit and all premises, as well as to the accounts and relevant supporting documents; (b) provide the control authority or control body with any information reasonably necessary for the purposes of the control; (c) submit, when requested by the control authority or control body, the results of its own quality assurance programmes.”
“A control body may permit the use of non-organic seed and seed potatoes for the purposes of Article 45(1)(b) and in accordance with Article 45 of Commission Regulation 889/2008.”
“Fees relating to the control system 14 (1) A control body must charge an operator a fee in respect of any expenses reasonably incurred by it in carrying out an inspection of the operator’s holding, premises or facilities. (2) Where an operator has been unable to reach agreement with a control body for the carrying out of an inspection, the Secretary of State must, if so requested by the operator, arrange for another control body to carry out an inspection. (3) In this regulation, “inspection” means an inspection or control visit carried out for the purposes of Article 65 of Commission Regulation 889/2008.”
“16. For the purposes of Article 30 of the Council Regulation (measures in case of infringements and irregularities), where a control body believes that an irregularity, severe infringement or infringement with prolonged effect has been found, it must— (a) notify that belief in writing to the Secretary of State, the local authority and, if there is one, the port health authority for the area concerned; and (b) give the local authority or port health authority any information which it may reasonably require for the purpose of enforcing these Regulations.”
“18. (1) The Schedule (specified... provisions) has effect. (2) It is an offence for a person to contravene any of the specified ... provisions or regulation 6. (3) It is an offence for a person, knowing a consignment to be a controlled consignment— (a) to move it or cause it to be moved otherwise than in accordance with the written consent of an authorised officer; or (b) to remove or cause to be removed from it a label which has been affixed under regulation 7(6). 19. A person guilty of an offence under these Regulations is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
“22. —(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), these Regulations and the specified ... provisions are enforced by the local authority within its area. (2) In relation to products imported from third countries, where there is a port health authority for the place of import or other place from which release for free circulation in Great Britain is being sought, these Regulations and the specified ... provisions are enforced by that authority instead of by the local authority. (3) In relation to cases of a particular description, or a particular case, the Secretary of State may give written directions to a local authority or a port health authority concerning the enforcement of these Regulations, and such directions may also be given— (a) in relation to Scotland, by the Scottish Ministers; (b) in relation to Wales, by the Welsh Ministers; and (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.”
“An authorised officer may, on producing (if so required) a duly authenticated document showing the officer's authority, at all reasonable hours enter any premises for the purposes of enforcing the specified provisions or these Regulations.”
“Obstruction etc. of authorised officers 26. —(1) It is an offence for a person— (a) intentionally to obstruct a person acting in the execution or enforcement of these Regulations or the specified... provisions; or (b )without reasonable excuse, the proof of which lies on the person, to fail to comply with any requirement made by an authorised officer under regulation 25. (2) A person who, in response to a requirement made under regulation 25, makes any representation which is false or misleading in a material particular and does so recklessly or knowing it to be false or misleading in that particular is guilty of an offence. (3) Nothing in paragraph (1)(b) requires a person to answer any question or give any information if to do so might incriminate the person.”
“Thus, in defining three categories of public authorities, Article 2(2) of the Directive 2003/4 is intended to cover a set of entities, whatever their legal form, that must be regarded as constituting public authority, be it the State itself, an entity empowered by the State to act on its behalf or an entity controlled by the State.”
“106. Mr de la Mare’s argument was that EU law looks to the substance rather than the form. We accept that argument. This accords with our interpretation of powers. The issue is a practical one. Do the powers give the body an ability that confers on it a practical advantage relative to the rules of private law?”
“We have, therefore, tried to be as helpful to the Commissioner and the First-tier Tribunal as we can through our reasons on the public authority issue. We cannot, however, lay down broad, general principles in quite the way that Ms Proops requested for these reasons. First, because the nature of the issue does not permit that. Second, because we have to act in the context of a case. We should not write a treatise on a particular issue, however interesting and useful that might be. Third, because useful guidance must be based either on a wide range of experience, such as the judges of this Chamber have in social security matters, or on detailed evidence covering the scope of the guidance, such as the Immigration and Asylum Chamber receives in its Country Guidance cases. We do not yet have the accumulated experience of other bodies than the companies and we did not have evidence on other types of body.”
‘The evidence showed that section 155 is little used. It is, however, always present as a fall back if a company is unable to secure agreement by negotiation. We were not given evidence that this occurs, but it is a fact of commercial life that these purchases take place ‘under the shadow of compulsion’ (Megarry and Wade, The Law of Real Property 6th edition at 22-056).’
“That was not how the Court approached it. It did not seek to classify powers as State power or other powers. The judgment directs the national courts to compare the powers in question with those that arise from the rules of private law. That is a different exercise, with a different point of reference.”
“The test laid down by the CJEU requires the national court to undertake a comparison between the powers that have been vested in the body in question and the powers that result from the rules of private law. The test refers to the powers that result from those rules, not to the powers that could result from the exercise of those rules.”
“Mr de la Mare gave the example of the duty under section45 of [theWater Industry Act 1991 ] to provide a connection. Section 45 provides for a number of conditions that can be imposed for complying with that duty. Looked at in isolation, section 45 appears to confer a range of powers that would not be available under private law. Seen in their full context, however, these are not powers but part and parcel of the duty to connect. They operate together to create a qualified duty.”
“…the only power a Control Body has to prohibit the marketing of a product is to remove the product or enterprise from the scope of the certificate and inform the operator that the status has been removed. The organic regulation prevents the sale and marketing of products as organic without a valid certificate.”
“Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraph 1, the conversion period may be reduced to one year for pasturages and open air areas used by non-herbivore species. This period may be reduced to six months where the land concerned has not during the last year, received treatments with products not authorised for organic production.”
“The conversion period may be reduced to 12 months where the land is being used for non-herbivores (i.e. pigs and poultry). Control Bodies are able to authorise this reduction without authorisation from the Competent Authority. This conversion period may be further reduced to 6 months if the operator can demonstrate that the land concerned has not had any prohibited inputs applied in the previous 12 months (as opposed to 3 years). Again, Control Bodies are able to authorise this reduction without authorisation from the Competent Authority.”
“The Control Body cannot take the decision to award the reduced conversion period. The Defra guidance to Control Bodies (Exhibit 6) details what operators must provide to Defra and any actions Control bodies must take. With regard to retroactive conversion, the only example where Defra approval is not required is in relation to land used for pasturages by pigs and poultry, this does not need authorisation at all, just verification by Control Bodies during their contracted annual controls, that the conditions for a reduced conversion for non-herbivores have been met. This function by the Control Body is no different to the audit carried out during inspection for any scheme requirement.”
“(19) Applicants should be able to seek an administrative or judicial review of the acts or omissions of a public authority in relation to a request.”
‘The element of compulsion allows the companies effectively to override the individuality that can be a feature of the exercise of private law powers.’