Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1998:129
Date: 1998-03-24
Language of the case: Finnish
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Finland

Summary of the Judgment
1. Preliminary rulings — Reference to the Court — National court or tribunal within the
meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty — Definition — Body having jurisdiction in cases relating
to agricultural aid
(EC Treaty, Art. 177)
2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Structural reform — Improving the efficiency
of agricultural structures — Less-favoured areas system — Compensatory allowance for per­
manent natural handicaps — Grant not subject to the condition of residence on the farm —
National legislation laying down a further residence requirement and, where that is not com­
plied with, conditions reding to activity — Breach of the principles of equal treatment or legal
certainty — None
(Council Regulation No 2328/91, Arts 17 and 18; Council Directive 75/268, Art. 1)
I - 6267
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-9/97 AND C-118/97
1. In order to determine whether a body is a
court or tribunal for the purposes of Article
177 of the Treaty, which is a question gov­
erned by Community law alone, account
must be taken of a number of factors, such
as whether the body is established by law,
whether it is permanent, whether its juris­
diction is compulsory, whether procedure
before it is inter partes, whether it applies
rules of law, and whether it is indepen­
dent. The Finnish Rural Businesses Appeals
Board satisfies those conditions, since it is
established by law and composed of mem­
bers appointed by public authority and
enjoying the same guarantees as judges
against removal from office; it has juris­
diction by law in respect of aid for rural
activities, gives legal rulings in accordance
with the applicable rules and the general
rules of procedure, and, under certain con­
ditions, an appeal lies against its decision
to the Supreme Administrative Court.
2. It is not contrary to Articles 17 and 18 of
Regulation No 2328/91 on improving the
efficiency of agricultural structures or to
Article 1 of Directive 75/268 on mountain
and hill farming and farming in certain
less-favoured areas to grant a compensa­
tory allowance for permanent natural
handicaps to a farmer whose home is not
on the farm. A farmer achieves the essen­
tial objective of the Community legisla­
tion, which is to support the continuation
of farming in less-favoured areas, where
he keeps his farm running, and the objec­
tive of maintaining population levels, to
which the continuation of farming
undoubtedly contributes, cannot of itself
imply a requirement of permanent resi­
dence.
However, Article 18(3) of the regulation
expressly authorises the Member States to
lay down additional or limiting conditions
for the grant of the compensatory allow­
ance. In view of that discretion, it is not
contrary either to the principle of equal
treatment or to that of legal certainty for
a farmer claiming the compensatory allow­
ance who does not live on his farm but
more than 12 kilometres by road from its
operational centre to be required to work
the farm himself and to derive at least 50%
of his income from farming or similar
activities and, in addition, to establish the
existence of special grounds.
I - 6268