# C_2019122EN.01000901.xml

| 1.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 21 December 2018 — Ursa Major Services B.V. v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-814/18)

(2019/C 122/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ursa Major Services B.V.

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 (1) applicable to the relationship between the provider of a subsidy, in the present case the Minister, and the beneficiary (the recipient of the subsidy)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 (1) applicable to the relationship between the provider of a subsidy, in the present case the Minister, and the beneficiary (the recipient of the subsidy)?

| 2. | If the first question is answered to the effect that Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 does apply to the relationship between the provider of the subsidy and the beneficiary: can expenditure that has been paid by a third party (whether or not by set-off) be regarded as expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered to the effect that Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 does apply to the relationship between the provider of the subsidy and the beneficiary: can expenditure that has been paid by a third party (whether or not by set-off) be regarded as expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006?

| 3. | If the second question is answered to the effect that expenditure paid by a third party (whether or not by set-off) cannot be regarded as expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006:






  (a) | does an executive practice whereby the provider of the subsidy has consistently considered contributions from third parties to be expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 mean that the beneficiary could not have been expected to detect such an incorrect interpretation of Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 by the provider of the subsidy, with the result that the beneficiary is entitled to the subsidy as granted to him, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered to the effect that expenditure paid by a third party (whether or not by set-off) cannot be regarded as expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006:

(a)

does an executive practice whereby the provider of the subsidy has consistently considered contributions from third parties to be expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 mean that the beneficiary could not have been expected to detect such an incorrect interpretation of Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 by the provider of the subsidy, with the result that the beneficiary is entitled to the subsidy as granted to him, and

| (b) | should the contributions from third parties then be included in the expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 (in which case the subsidy is set higher) or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

should the contributions from third parties then be included in the expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 (in which case the subsidy is set higher) or

| (c) | should recovery of the wrongly granted subsidy then be waived on the basis of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and/or the principle of legal certainty? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

should recovery of the wrongly granted subsidy then be waived on the basis of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and/or the principle of legal certainty?

| (d) | does it make any difference in that regard if the provider of the subsidy, as in the present case, has granted an advance on the subsidy? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

does it make any difference in that regard if the provider of the subsidy, as in the present case, has granted an advance on the subsidy?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (OJ 2006 L 223, p. 1).

---