The Queen on the application of Feakins (Appellant/Claimant) and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Respondent/Defendant) Pays/Territoire Royaume-Uni Type de cour Autres Date Nov 4, 2003 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal Court of Appeal Siège de la cour London Juge ThorpeParkerDyson Numéro de référence [2003] EWCA Civ 1546 Langue Anglais Sujet Bétail, Déchets et substances dangereuses Mot clé Parasites/maladies Résumé This appeal concerned the manner in which an estimated 13,500 tonnes of potentially contaminated material left by the defendant on the claimant’s farm land could be disposed of by the defendant. That material included ash from pyres on which at least 4750 animal carcasses which had been slaughtered by the defendant were burned during the foot and mouth disease epidemic in 2001. It also comprised unburnt carcass parts. The claimant contended that the only lawful manner of disposal of the residue was by incineration at an incineration plant. He relied on the (EU) TSE Regulation (999/2001/EC) and the (EU) Animal Waste Directive (90/667/EEC). The defendant contended that she was entitled to dispose of the residue to landfill, without any form of prior processing. The claimant owned a farm which was run as a livestock farm until the end of February 2001, when FMD was diagnosed in animals at the farm. All the animals were seized and slaughtered by the defendant, and the decision was taken to burn their carcasses on pyres on the claimant’s land. The Court first examined the standing of the claimant. It emphasized that if a claimant had no sufficient private interest to support a claim to standing, then he should not be accorded standing merely because he raised an issue of public interest. The claimant however asked for an undertaking that the defendant would remove the material if the Environment Agency considered it to be unsafe to leave the material buried. It therefore held that the claimant did have standing to make the application. Furthermore, it stressed that the defendant’s proposal was burial in approved, licensed, landfill sites. Such sites would safely retain the ash. The burning had substantially reduced infectivity. Such burial would reduce the already reduced risk of transmission of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. It was not required that all risk whatsoever had to be completely eliminated by the method of disposal. The appeal was dismissed. Texte intégral feakins.htm