In conclusions on Thursday 22 February (Case-59/17), the advocate general stated it was up to member states to provide means of access to agricultural land and to determine how checks and inspections should be carried out, and notably whether the farmer’s agreement is required or not.
In 2009, the company Château du Grand Bois presented a request for restructuring aid and for reconversion of its vineyard for the harvest years 2008-2009. The national establishment for agriculture and marine products (FranceAgriMer) rejected that request saying that it had been noted, during on-the-spot checks carried out by one of its agents, that grubbing-up had not been carried out in compliance with the regulations (479/2008 and 555/2008) on common market organisation for wine production.
Château du Grand Bois challenged the decision reached by FranceAgri/Mer before the French courts, stating that unauthorised penetration onto its property by the national organisation’s agent has an effect on the legality of the decision.
The French Conseil d’État asks the Court of Justice whether European legislation authorises agents who carry out on-the-spot checks or inspections to enter the property of a farmer without first having obtained that farmer’s agreement.
In his conclusions, Advocate General Michal Bobek states that the EU rules of procedure do not contain any provision on the conditions in which it is possible to enter land or on the question of knowing whether the vineyard owner’s agreement is required or not.
Although such regulation authorises on-the-spot checks, the advocate general is of the opinion that this expression only implies that the inspector can enter on any day without advance notice to the vine grower of his visit, and not that the agreement of the vineyard owner is implicitly given so that the agent may enter the vineyard property.
By way of conclusion, Bobek believes it is up to national legislation to provide access conditions to agricultural land for on-the-spot inspections and to determine how such controls should be carried out.
In this respect, the advocate general states that the fact of entering private, open land to carry out inspections without having the authorisation required under national law, but also without causing any damage to the property in question, will probably not be considered as violation of the right of ownership. This would not be the case when an agent enters enclosed land without the agreement of the owner.
Regarding the inviolability of a residence, the advocate general believes that, under recent case law, an open vineyard should not normally be considered as part of the notion of “residence”. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)