Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:364
Date: 2016-05-26
Language of the case: Latvian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 26 May 2016 1. Agriculture — EAGGF financing — Support for rural development — Agri-environment aid — Recovery of undue payments — National legislation providing for the obligation, for the beneficiary of aid granted in return for his agri-environmental commitments covering several years, to repay all of the aid paid in respect of previous years in the event of failure to submit an annual application for payment — Period of new agri-environmental commitments following the substantial increase of the area declared — Lawfulness — Compliance by the beneficiary of his obligations relating to the area originally declared — No effect (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17 and 52; Council Regulation No 1257/1999, as amended by Regulation No 1783/2003; Commission Regulations No 796/2004 and No 817/2004, Art. 37(3) and 71(2)) 2. EU law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Right to property — Recovery of aid unduly paid as a result of the failure to satisfy an eligibility condition — No infringement (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 17) 3. EU law — Primacy — Compatible national law — Power of a national court to reject it on the basis of the principles of proportionality and fairness — Not included (Declaration No 17 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties) 1. Article 71(2) of Regulation No 817/2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the EAGGF, must, in the light of the objective of Regulation No 1257/1999, as amended by Regulation No 1783/2003, and of Regulation No 817/2004, in the light of the principle of proportionality and Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation in accordance with which the beneficiary of aid granted in return for agri-environmental commitments covering several years is required to repay all of the aid already received, on the ground that he did not submit an annual application for payment of that aid for the last year of the five-year period of his commitments, where, first, that five-year period replaced an earlier period as a result of an increase in the area of his holding and, secondly, that beneficiary did not cease to fulfil his obligations relating to the use of the area declared prior to that increase. As a result of the substantial increase of the area of the holding concerned and of the beginning of a new five-year commitment period, the beneficiary is required, throughout that period, to respect all of the obligations resulting therefrom and that for the whole increased area over a period of five years. A failure to comply with those conditions results in the grant and maintenance of the benefit of aid being unjustified and devoid of legal basis, and that in its entirety. (see paras 38, 46, 57, operative part) 2. The obligation to repay aid unduly paid as a result of the failure to satisfy an eligibility condition for that aid cannot be regarded as an infringement of the right to property, recognised in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, so that a beneficiary who is obliged to repay aid obtained unduly, simply as a consequence of a failure to satisfy the conditions of their payment, cannot rely on the protection afforded by Article 17 of that Charter. (see paras 47, 49) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 46, 52-54, 56)