Case 240/78 Atalanta [1979] ECR 2137
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:15:09 UTC
ECJ held that one article of regulations made on agriculture was contrary to the principle of proportionality, but that the rest of the regulation articles were fine.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Case C-375/96 Galileo Zaninotto v Ispettorato Centrale
Given the broad political duties to further the aims of CAP, court takes a hands-off approach: The legality of a measure adopted in that sphere (agriculture) can be affected only if the measure is ma...
Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Ruckdeschel
(Equal treatment/nondiscrimination): Some regulations were brought in that benefitted one type of crop producer, but not another despite the fact that they were in direct competition with each other,...
Case C-453/03 et al ex p ABNA
A directive article that required manufacturers to disclose the exact compounds present in agricultural feeding-stuff at a customer’s request. Held this to be a disproportionate breach of the right t...
Alliance for Natural Health
A directive had been passed that banned advertising of foods containing certain minerals/chemicals, made pursuant to Article 95. ECJ held that the directive was valid. Said that failure to produce s...
Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health
Another directive made under Article 95, addressed to Sweden, Austria and a couple of other countries, was created to limit tobacco advertising. The ECJ held that this directive was valid because it...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.