Regina Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex p SP Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and Others

Where the resolution of proceedings before a final national court depends on uncertain questions concerning the meaning of European Community plant-health legislation, the court must obtain a preliminary ruling under article 234 of the EC Treaty. The requirement that citrus-fruit packaging bear an appropriate origin mark, and the requirement for an official statement of origin, raised questions whose answers were not clear.

The House therefore referred both questions to the European Court of Justice. Its members expressed preliminary views on the provisions, but made no final determination of their meaning.

Two consignments of citrus fruit originating in northern Cyprus travelled through Turkey before entering the United Kingdom. The Turkish authorities inspected them and issued phytosanitary certificates. Earlier rulings in the same litigation had established that certificates issued by the authorities in northern Cyprus could not be accepted, but that a certificate from an intermediate non-member country could be accepted unless the produce was subject to special requirements capable of fulfilment only at its place of origin.

The appellants contended that item 16.1 of Annex IV, Part A to Council Directive 77/93/EEC required the packaging's origin mark to be affixed in the country of origin. They also relied, with leave, on the amended requirements for official statements in items 16.2 to 16.4. The central questions were whether either requirement could be fulfilled by officials in an intermediate third country and whether a further preliminary reference was necessary.

1. Further reference ordered. Lord Slynn of Hadley delivered the leading speech. Lord Steyn agreed with his reasons and order. Lord Hope of Craighead agreed that both questions should be referred, although he differed from Lord Slynn on the preferable interpretation of item 16.1. As the House was the final national court, and a ruling on the disputed provisions was necessary to dispose of the proceedings, it was bound under article 234 of the EC Treaty to refer the questions to the European Court of Justice.

2. Late reliance on the amended requirements. Lord Slynn and Lord Hope held that leave should be granted to raise the effect of Directive 98/2/EC. The amendment had been published shortly before an earlier hearing and was closely related to the existing issue concerning the origin mark. Because the proceedings operated as a test case and the new point could materially affect whether citrus fruit could enter the United Kingdom, all relevant issues should be addressed.

3. Lord Slynn's preliminary view on item 16.1. Lord Slynn considered that an “appropriate” origin mark required an authentic statement from someone capable of positively identifying the fruit's origin. An examiner in an intermediate country could inspect whether fruit had leaves or peduncles, but could not personally verify its origin. The protective purpose of the legislation, including the traceability of harmful organisms, therefore indicated that the mark had to be affixed in the country of origin.

4. The amended official-statement requirements. Lord Slynn considered that the statements required by items 16.2 to 16.4 concerned matters such as the recognised disease status of the country or area of origin, conditions at the place of production and registered packing premises. They could effectively be supplied only in the country of origin. Lord Hope similarly considered that the amended official statement must certify where the fruit originated and therefore had to come from an official there. Both nevertheless regarded the wider consequences as requiring a preliminary ruling.

5. Lord Hope's differing view on item 16.1. Lord Hope considered that the packaging mark was a durable visual identifier intended to accompany fruit circulating within the Community. It was distinct from the additional official statement required by item 16.2 and need not be affixed at the place of origin. Since the interpretation was not acte clair, he agreed that the question required referral.

The parties were permitted to make written submissions on the formulation of the questions before the reference order was finalised. The proceedings would return to the House after receipt of the European Court's ruling.

1. House of Lords: In [2001] UKHL 71, unanimously ordered a further preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice under article 234 of the EC Treaty. Final determination was deferred.

2. European Court of Justice: In Case C-219/98, by judgment dated 4 July 2000, ruled that a phytosanitary certificate issued by an intermediate non-member country could be accepted if prescribed conditions were met, including that no applicable special requirement could be satisfied only in the country of origin.

3. House of Lords: On 20 May 1998 referred questions concerning certificates issued by an intermediate non-member country under article 177 of the EC Treaty.

4. Court of Appeal: The Minister challenged the declaration made by Popplewell J. The precise disposition is not stated in this judgment.

5. High Court: Following the first European Court ruling, Popplewell J made a declaration on 11 November 1994 that certificates issued by the northern Cypriot authorities could not be accepted.

6. European Court of Justice: In Case C-432/92, [1994] ECR I-3087, held that the relevant movement and phytosanitary certificates could not be accepted unless issued by the competent authorities of the Republic of Cyprus.