The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge by three milk quota holders to regulations introduced in 2000 governing the transfer and restructuring of milk quotas in Ireland.
Nicholas Philip Maher, Malachy Brett and Rita Ryan argued that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development had gone beyond his lawful powers by making the European Communities (Milk Quota) Regulations 2000 through a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation passed by the Oireachtas.
The rules formed part of the European Union's milk quota system, which was used to regulate production under the Common Agricultural Policy. Among the applicants' objections was the effect of the new regime on the ability to sell or lease milk quota with land on the open market.
Their High Court challenge was rejected in December 2000 and they appealed to the Supreme Court.
Mrs Justice Denham held that EU regulations governing the milk quota scheme were directly applicable in Ireland and already contained the principles and policies controlling the system. The Minister's role was therefore one of detailed implementation rather than the creation of new national policy.
The court said the fact that EU rules left Ireland with choices did not necessarily turn those choices into legislation requiring an Act of the Oireachtas. They amounted to limited discretion exercised within a policy framework already established at European level.
The Supreme Court consequently found no breach of Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution, which reserves law-making power to the Oireachtas, and rejected the argument that the executive had usurped the legislature's role.
The applicants also claimed that milk quotas were constitutionally protected property and that the regulations unjustly interfered with those rights. Denham J rejected that argument in the circumstances of the case. She described milk quota as a regulatory entitlement created under EU agricultural policy, subject from the outset to changing conditions and restructuring in the public interest.
Even if such an entitlement could be treated as property, the court held that it remained subject to the common good and proportionality. The appeal was dismissed.