# C_2012379EN.01001301.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 27 August 2012 — A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren; other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

(Case C-396/12)

2012/C 379/21

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren

Appellants:

Other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | How should the term ‘intentional non-compliance’ in Article 51(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) ..., as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 (2) of 19 January 2009, in Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (3) of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1698/2005 ..., and in Article 67(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (4) of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers ..., be understood? In order to assume that intentional non-compliance has occurred, is it sufficient that there is non-compliance with long-established, settled policy as described in Article 8(2)(c) of the national Beleidsregels normenkader randvoorwaarden Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid (Netherlands Policy Rules governing the Cross-Compliance Standards Framework for the Common Agricultural Policy)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How should the term ‘intentional non-compliance’ in Article 51(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) ..., as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 (2) of 19 January 2009, in Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (3) of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1698/2005 ..., and in Article 67(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (4) of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers ..., be understood? In order to assume that intentional non-compliance has occurred, is it sufficient that there is non-compliance with long-established, settled policy as described in Article 8(2)(c) of the national Beleidsregels normenkader randvoorwaarden Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid (Netherlands Policy Rules governing the Cross-Compliance Standards Framework for the Common Agricultural Policy)?

1

2

3

4

| 2. | Does European Union law preclude a ruling in a Member State that there is ‘intentional’ non-compliance with a scheme, within the terms of those regulations, on the ground that one or more of the following circumstances obtained:






  (a) | intent has already been assumed in the cross-compliance requirement in respect of which there has been non-compliance; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Does European Union law preclude a ruling in a Member State that there is ‘intentional’ non-compliance with a scheme, within the terms of those regulations, on the ground that one or more of the following circumstances obtained:

(a)

intent has already been assumed in the cross-compliance requirement in respect of which there has been non-compliance;

| (b) | the cross-compliance requirement concerned is complex; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the cross-compliance requirement concerned is complex;

| (c) | long-established, settled policy exists; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

long-established, settled policy exists;

| (d) | there has been an active performance of an act, or a conscious omission of an act; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

there has been an active performance of an act, or a conscious omission of an act;

| (e) | the farmer was previously informed of compliance deficiencies in respect of the cross-compliance requirement concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the farmer was previously informed of compliance deficiencies in respect of the cross-compliance requirement concerned; and

| (f) | the extent of the non-compliance with the cross-compliance requirement points to intentional non-compliance? |
| --- | --- |

(f)

the extent of the non-compliance with the cross-compliance requirement points to intentional non-compliance?

| 3. | Can ‘intent’ with regard to the ‘non-compliance’ be attributed to the beneficiary of the subsidy if a third party carries out the work on the instructions of that beneficiary? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can ‘intent’ with regard to the ‘non-compliance’ be attributed to the beneficiary of the subsidy if a third party carries out the work on the instructions of that beneficiary?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 100.

2

(3)  OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74.

3

(4)  OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18.

4

---