Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 90
October 2006
Coopérative des agriculteurs de la Mayenne and Coopérative laitière Maine-Anjou v. France dec.) - 16931/04
Decision 10.10.2006 [Section II]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Compulsory contributions required from farm cooperatives under Community law for exceeding milk quotas: inadmissible
The applicants are two farm cooperatives under French law, one of whose functions is to collect milk and milk derivatives supplied by the farmers belonging to the cooperative. The second applicant is in reality simply the legal entity which took over the first applicant’s milk collection operations. Following an inspection by the National Dairy Board (Onilait) aimed in particular at checking that the first applicant’s activities were compatible with the Community regulations, the first applicant was informed that it had exceeded its milk production quotas for 1988-1992. Onilait therefore gave the first applicant notice to pay substantial sums in over-production levies. The applicants asked the administrative courts to set aside the enforceable orders issued by Onilait for the payment of the sums concerned. The administrative court rejected their application, finding that there was no foundation for the applicants’ assertion that the basis on which the amounts recovered had been calculated had not been made sufficiently clear. The applicants appealed to the administrative court of appeal, which upheld the earlier judgments, emphasising, among other points, that the French rules in this sphere merely gave effect to the Community regulations, and that compliance with Article 6(1) of the Convention did not require that the levies should be adjusted by the courts. The applicants then appealed on points of law to the Conseil d’Etat, arguing in particular that the impugned levies were in breach of the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Conseil d’Etat dismissed the appeal, finding that the appeal court had replied adequately to the grounds of appeal submitted to it (which were not ineffective) and had not committed any error of law.
Inadmissible under Article 6, as the courts applied to at first instance could properly be described as courts of first instance and the Conseil d’Etat had conducted a genuine and thorough examination of the judgments being appealed against: manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 7, as no one had been “held guilty” in the instant case within the meaning of that Article: incompatible ratione materiae.
Inadmissible under Article 14, as the applicants’ final submissions to the Conseil d’Etat had not included any arguments amounting to a complaint as such to the effect that the levy system was discriminatory: failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The interference represented by the levies at issue was justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as the legal basis for the impugned measure was the Community legislation laying down the amount of contributions to be paid, and the French authorities did not enjoy any discretion in that regard. In addition, adherence by the authorities of European Union Member States to the policy aimed at stabilising the milk market not only played a legitimate part in ensuring the effectiveness of international cooperation and the proper functioning of international organisations, but was also of direct benefit to the applicants. Accordingly, the case did not disclose manifest shortcomings in the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention capable of rebutting the presumption of protection of those rights by Community law: manifestly ill‑founded.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy