The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the State parties in a dispute over whether veterinary medicine packaging and information in Ireland must be provided in both Irish and English. It held that the relevant EU directive’s language requirements had not been transposed correctly, but limited its declaration to the State and State bodies. It did not require new amending legislation or decide whether it had jurisdiction to make a broader invalidity order.
The applicant, Peadar Mac Fhlannchadha, is an Irish speaker living in the Conamara Gaeltacht and a buyer of veterinary products. He argued that national regulations allowed product information to be supplied in English or Irish, rather than requiring both official languages, and therefore failed to implement the EU rules. The Court of Appeal said the directive’s relevant provisions were clear, precise and unconditional, and that Mac Fhlannchadha could rely on them as an Irish-speaking consumer.
The High Court had previously declared the 2007 regulations ultra vires to the extent that they did not require veterinary labelling and information in both languages. After the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on a referred question about whether relief could be refused as pointless because the legislation was due to change, the High Court issued further declarations in June 2021. The State parties appealed.
The Court of Appeal considered whether a national court could make a declaration with general effect that transposing measures were invalid under EU law. It noted the limits on relying on a directive in disputes between private parties and said the question of broader national invalidity jurisdiction remained uncertain. Given the impending legislative change, it decided against making another reference to the Court of Justice.
Instead, the Court declared that the State had failed properly to transpose the relevant requirements concerning labelling, packaging and package leaflets, insofar as the national rules did not require the information in both Irish and English. It added that the declaration binds only the State and its bodies and does not apply to private entities such as manufacturers or suppliers. It set aside the High Court’s second and third declarations, which went further, and left the broader jurisdictional question for a more suitable case.
The court’s view on costs was provisional. It said the applicant should be entitled to have costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal considered unless the parties agreed otherwise, and invited any party wishing to dispute that view to contact the registrar within 14 days.