Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1997:379
Date: 1997-07-17
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Beef and veal;Financial provisions;Agricultural structures;Own resources
Concepts: Structural reform of agriculture: joint action
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgment
1. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system
for certain aid schemes — Area-linked aid f or arable crops and set-aside — Area declared in
good faith but exceeding that actually determined by more than 20% — Penalty imposed
under the rules in Regulation No 3887/92 — Preclusion of any payment — Penalty under the
rules in Regulation No 1648/95, applying retroactively — Calculation of compensatory pay­
ments on the basis of the area of set-aside actually determined
(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Arts 1(2) and 2(2); Commission Regulations No 3887/92,
Art. 9(2) to (4), and No 1648/95)
I - 4559
SUMMARY — CASE C-354/95
2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system
for certain aid schemes — Area-linked aid for forage areas used for bovine animals or for
areas under a specific arable crop — Area declared in good faith but exceeding that actually
determined by more than 20% — Penalty — Preclusion of any payment — Breach of the
principles of proportionality, legal certainty or non-discrimination — None
(Commission Regulations No 3887/92, Art. 9(2) to (4), and No 1648/95)
1. Article 9(2) to (4) of Regulation No
3887/92 laying down detailed rules for
applying the integrated administration
and control system for certain Commu­
nity aid schemes, prior to the entry into
force of Regulation No 1648/95 amend­
ing it, must be interpreted as precluding
any payment linked to the arable areas
when the difference between the area of
set-aside land declared and that deter­
mined on inspection by the competent
authorities exceeds 20% and there is no
false intention or serious negligence.
However, in the light of Articles 1 (2) and
2(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 on the
protection of the European Communi­
ties' financial interests, under which less
severe penalties introduced by subsequent
amendments to Community provisions
must be applied retroactively, the amend­
ments made to Article 9(4) of Regulation
No 3887/92 by Regulation No 1648/95
apply to circumstances which occurred
before its entry into force. Consequently,
the calculation of the maximum eligible
area for the compensatory payments for
arable crop producers must be made,
under Article 9(4) of Regulation No
3887/92, as amended by Regulation No
1648/95, on the basis of the area of set-
aside land actually determined and on a
pro rata basis for each crop concerned.
2. Article 9(2) to (4) of Regulation No
3887/92 laying down detailed rules for
applying the integrated administration
and control system for certain Commu­
nity aid schemes, even after the entry into
force of Regulation No 1648/95 amend­
ing it, must be interpreted as precluding
the payment of any premium for bovine
animals to farmers when the forage area
as actually determined is found to be
more than 20% smaller than that declared
in the 'area' aid application and there is
no false intention or serious negligence.
Those rules do not infringe the principles
of proportionality, legal certainty or non­
discrimination. As regards the first, given
the wide measure of discretion enjoyed
by the Community institutions in the
area in question, it cannot be regarded as
unjustified or disproportionate to impose
in respect of such an error, the extent of
which is considerable, a dissuasive and
effective penalty, particularly since the
system established by Article 9(2) to (4)
provides for sanctions graded according
to the seriousness of the irregularity com­
mitted and is therefore commensurate
with the objectives pursued and necessary
in order to achieve them. As regards the
principle of legal certainty, whilst Regu­
lation No 3887/92 may present some dif­
ficulties of interpretation, they are due to
the complexity of the matters involved
and if the regulation is read carefully, the
sense and consequences of the application
of its provisions, which are intended for
I - 4560
THE QUEEN v MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD, EX PARTE NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION
those involved professionally in the area,
can be grasped. As regards, finally, the
principle of non-discrimination, the pen­
alties imposed, on the one hand, on farm­
ers who have committed the error in
question and, on the other hand, on farm­
ers who have made a false declaration
intentionally or as a result of serious neg­
ligence are different, so that different situ­
ations are not treated in the same way.
Nor, for the same reasons, do the rules in
question infringe those principles in so
far as they impose the sanction of loss of
the entire payment linked to a specific
area, namely an area devoted to a particu­
lar arable crop, on a farmer when the area
of land as actually determined is found to
be more than 20% smaller than that
declared in his aid application and there is
no false intention or serious negligence.
I - 4561