Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Ex p S P Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and Others, R v.

This appeal concerned the correct interpretation of Annex IV, Part A, item 16.1 of Council Directive 77/93/EEC (the Plant Health Directive) and related amendments made by Commission Directive 98/2/EC. The key question was whether the special requirement that "the packaging shall bear an appropriate origin mark" must be fulfilled in the country of origin or may be fulfilled in a third country through which produce is transhipped. A further related question was whether the "official statement" required by the amended items 16.2–16.4 must be made by an official in the country of origin.

The House held that these questions raised points of EU law which could not be finally resolved domestically and that a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice was required under article 234 EC. Lord Slynn (with whom Lord Steyn agreed) favoured a construction that the origin mark should be affixed in the country of origin and that the amendments in Directive 98/2/EC support that view; he therefore proposed specific questions for reference. Lord Hope, while setting out alternative and detailed reasons (including some reasons why the mark might be capable of being inspected in a third country), concluded that the meaning was not acte clair and supported referring both the meaning of item 16.1 and the effect of the amended item 16.2 to the European Court. The House therefore ordered that the two questions be referred for a preliminary ruling.

Background and parties:

• The dispute arises from two consignments of citrus fruit originating in the northern part of Cyprus (the area north of the United Nations Buffer Zone), shipped in March 1995 via a Turkish port to the United Kingdom.
• The exporters and importers (SP Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and others) sought to establish whether phytosanitary certificates issued in Turkey, rather than by the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus, could validate importation into the United Kingdom under the Plant Health Directive.

Procedural history:

• The litigation has previously involved references to the European Court of Justice: Case C-432/92 (Anastasiou I) and Case C-219/98 (Anastasiou II). National proceedings included a decision by Popplewell J and subsequent challenge in the Court of Appeal. This House earlier referred questions to the ECJ and received judgments relevant to transhipment and certification.

Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• The appellants sought a declaration or order preventing the Minister from allowing citrus fruit produced in the northern part of Cyprus to be admitted into the United Kingdom when accompanied by certificates not issued by the competent authorities of the Republic of Cyprus. They also raised specific points about whether packaging origin marks and official statements required by Annex IV, Part A of the Directive must originate in the country of origin.

Issues framed by the House:

1. Whether item 16.1 of Annex IV, Part A ("the packaging shall bear an appropriate origin mark") can only be fulfilled in the country of origin or whether it may be fulfilled in a third country through which the goods pass.
2. Whether the official statement required by items 16.2–16.4, as amended by Directive 98/2/EC, must be made by an official in the country of origin or may be made by an official in a third country.

Court’s reasoning:

• The House analysed the text of article 9(1) and article 12(1) of Directive 77/93/EEC, the wording of item 16.1 and the amendments introduced by Directive 98/2/EC, and the purpose of the special requirements (plant health protection, traceability and durability of origin information).
• Lord Slynn considered the mark of origin prima facie required to be affixed in the country of origin because of authenticity and traceability concerns and because the amended items 16.2–16.4 point to an intention that certain statements and safeguards be provided by authorities in the country of origin.
• Lord Hope analysed the wording and context and noted the contrast between a packaging mark and an "official statement"; he concluded the meaning was not acte clair and that the amendment (Directive 98/2/EC) reinforced the need for a clear answer on whether the official statement must be made in the country of origin.
• Because these points required authoritative interpretation of EU law and because of the significance of the issues to the UK regime and to wider practice, the House concluded that it was obliged to refer the framed questions to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under article 234 EC.

Relief and disposition:

• The House made an order referring the two specified questions to the European Court of Justice and invited parties to make submissions on the precise wording of the questions before the final reference was drawn up. The matter was to return after the ECJ’s reply.

Remitted: the House did not decide the substantive questions but concluded that they raised points of EU law requiring a preliminary ruling. The House ordered a reference to the European Court of Justice as the questions could not be resolved domestically with sufficient certainty; the proposed questions concerned (1) whether item 16.1's origin-mark requirement can only be fulfilled in the country of origin or may be fulfilled in another third country and (2) whether the official statement in items 16.2–16.4, as amended, must be made by an official in the country of origin.

Earlier proceedings included Popplewell J (declaration made 11 November 1994) and an appeal to the Court of Appeal; the matter was the subject of references to the European Court of Justice: Case C-432/92 (R v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex p SP Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd) [1994] ECR I-3087 and Case C-219/98 (Anastasiou and Others) (judgment 4 July 2000). The House had previously referred questions to the ECJ (article 177/234 references) and now referred further questions under article 234 EC for preliminary ruling.