# C_2018381EN.01000601.xml

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 July 2018 — Farmland Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter

(Case C-489/18)

(2018/C 381/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Farmland Kft.

Defendant: Földművelésügyi Miniszter

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the rule established by the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 22/2010 of 16 March, the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 34/2010 of 9 April, the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 25/2011 of 7 April, and the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 22/2011 of 25 March — in accordance with which a farmer’s application for support is to be rejected based solely on the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’, laid down by national law, and the absence of the ‘certificate of land use’ as a result of those criteria, even though the farmer meets the other criteria relating to the application for support and, in particular, is able to prove that the parcels declared are at his disposal, that is to say, that he manages and exploits those parcels — compatible with EU law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the rule established by the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 22/2010 of 16 March, the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 34/2010 of 9 April, the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 25/2011 of 7 April, and the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 22/2011 of 25 March — in accordance with which a farmer’s application for support is to be rejected based solely on the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’, laid down by national law, and the absence of the ‘certificate of land use’ as a result of those criteria, even though the farmer meets the other criteria relating to the application for support and, in particular, is able to prove that the parcels declared are at his disposal, that is to say, that he manages and exploits those parcels — compatible with EU law?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative: does EU law require the paying agency of a Member State to take into account, in evaluating the application for support, other evidence that the ‘at the farmer’s disposal’ requirement referred to in Article 124 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is satisfied? (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative: does EU law require the paying agency of a Member State to take into account, in evaluating the application for support, other evidence that the ‘at the farmer’s disposal’ requirement referred to in Article 124 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is satisfied? (1)

| 3. | If the first question is answered in the negative: from the perspective of EU law, what are the legal consequences of the statement by the farmer in the single application ‘that he is aware of the conditions pertaining to the aid schemes in question’, required by Article 12(e) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, (2) that is to say how should that statement be interpreted or assessed with regard to a particular restrictive provision of the Member State, such as the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the first question is answered in the negative: from the perspective of EU law, what are the legal consequences of the statement by the farmer in the single application ‘that he is aware of the conditions pertaining to the aid schemes in question’, required by Article 12(e) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, (2) that is to say how should that statement be interpreted or assessed with regard to a particular restrictive provision of the Member State, such as the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’?

| 4. | If the first question is answered in the negative: from the perspective of EU law, what are the legal consequences of an obligation imposed by the Member State to make a declaration that the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’ have been met or that administrative requirements relating to that particular restrictive provision of the Member State have been satisfied, that is to say how should that obligation be interpreted or assessed? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the first question is answered in the negative: from the perspective of EU law, what are the legal consequences of an obligation imposed by the Member State to make a declaration that the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’ have been met or that administrative requirements relating to that particular restrictive provision of the Member State have been satisfied, that is to say how should that obligation be interpreted or assessed?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).

---