Order — ECLI:EU:C:2014:40
Date: 2014-01-16
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Summary — Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 16 January 2014 1. Acts of the institutions — Regulations — Direct applicability — Competence for implementation conferred on a Member State — Limits 2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) 3. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by the EAFRD — Support for rural development — National rules requiring local action groups to conduct their activity solely under a specific legal form — Lawfulness — Limits — Verification a matter for the national court (Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union; Council Regulation No 1698/2005, Arts 61 and 62) 4. EU law — General principles of law — Legal certainty — Concept — Rules with negative consequences for individuals — Requirement of clarity and precision — Legislative amendments — Lawfulness — Taking account of special circumstances 5. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by the EAFRD — Support for rural development — National rules requiring local action groups to conduct their activity solely under a specific legal form — Application of those rules, at the end of a transitional period of one year, on local action groups created under a different form — Lawfulness — Limits — Verification a matter for the national court (Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union; Council Regulation No 1698/2005) 6. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Questions manifestly without relevance, hypothetical questions put in a context precluding a meaningful response and questions with no bearing on the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings (Art. 267 TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 14-16) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 23-28, 35, 36) 3. The provisions of Regulation No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in particular Articles 61 and 62 thereof, must be interpreted as not requiring nor, in principle, prohibiting, the adoption of national provisions to the effect that a local action group which meets all of the conditions listed in Article 62(1) of that regulation may not operate unless it does so under a particular form of legal organisation. It is, however, for the referring court to ensure that, bearing in mind all of its relevant characteristics, such legislation does not obstruct the direct applicability of that regulation and that it specifies the exercise of the margin of discretion granted to the Member States by that regulation whilst remaining within its bounds. It is likewise for the referring court to ensure that such national legislation observes the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles of EU law. (see para. 29, operative part 1) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 32-34) 5. EU law does not preclude, in principle, national legislation which provides that local action groups may not operate unless they do so under a specific legal form from applying, at the end of a transitional period of one year, to local action groups that have been validly created under a different form of legal organisation under earlier national legislation, even though the aid programmes and the programming period relating thereto are underway. That is so, however, only in so far as it is for the national court to verify that, in the light, in particular, of the specific characteristics of the abovementioned successive rules of national law and of the practical implications thereof, the application of the new legislation to such local action groups specifies the exercise of the margin of discretion granted to the Member States by Regulation No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) whilst remaining within its bounds and that such application is in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles of EU law. (see para. 37, operative part 2) 6. See the text of the decision. (see paras 39-45)