Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Appellants) v. ASDA Stores Limited and another (Respondents) Pays/Territoire Royaume-Uni Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Déc 18, 2003 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal House of Lords Siège de la cour London Juge Lord Nicholls of BirkenheadLord HoffmannLord Hobhouse of WoodboroughLord MillettLord Walker of Gestingthorpe Numéro de référence [2003] UKHL 71 Langue Anglais Sujet Alimentation et nutrition, Questions juridiques Mot clé Infractions/sanctions Contrôle de qualité alimentaire/innocuité des produits alimentaires Résumé The Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate is responsible for the enforcement of European Community marketing standards for fresh fruit and vegetables and other horticultural produce in England and Wales. In 2000 the Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate visited the Asda supermarket in Hampshire and considered that some of the fruit and vegetables on display contravened EC marketing standards regarding labeling and quality. Based on this inspection 14 informations were laid against Asda Stores Ltd alleging offences contrary to section 14(1)(a) of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 as amended. The offence comprised offering for sale a specified type of fruit or vegetables in contravention of EC marketing standards as prescribed by a specified EC regulation. Asda Stores Ltd submitted that the court had no jurisdiction to try the informations because the offences charged were not known to the law. The district judge accepted the defendants’ preliminary submission on the law, so the truth of the facts alleged was not determined at the trial. But it was clear that if the alleged facts were true, then Asda had contravened the relevant EC regulations. Nor was it in dispute that the UK, in common with other member states, was under an obligation to take all necessary steps to penalize infringements of these EC regulations. But the Community regulations did not themselves create criminal offences in the UK. The question raised by this appeal was whether the relevant statutory provisions enacted in the UK were effective to criminalize contraventions of the particular EC regulations in point in these proceedings. The courts below held they were not. The question was one of statutory interpretation. The House of Lords emphasized that offence-creating provisions always had to be expressed with sufficient clarity and precision. But the mechanism chosen by Parliament for implementing Community obligations was a matter of legislative choice for Parliament. Particularly where Community legislation could be changed frequently, Parliament could choose to adopt an approach which did not involve making new implementing regulations whenever Community legislation changed. In each case the court was seeking to find, with the assistance of the usual interpretative aids, the intention reasonably to be attributed to Parliament in enacting the relevant legislation. In the present case, the House of Lords held that there was no room for doubt on the proper interpretation of the relevant section of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 Act. It declared that the offences charged were offences known to the law. The contrary interpretation of these provisions would mean that for many years the UK had been in breach of its Community law obligation to penalize contraventions of Community grading rules introduced after 1972. The appeal was allowed. The matter was remitted to the Justices for trial of the informations laid by the appellants. Texte intégral asda-1.htm