Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2019:1122
Date: 2019-12-19
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Economic, social and territorial cohesion;European Social Fund (ESF);European Regional Development Fund (ERDF);Cohesion Fund
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2018 — Coöperatieve Producentenorganisatie en Beheersgroep Texel UA v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Case C-386/18) Language of the case: Dutch Referring court College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Coöperatieve Producentenorganisatie en Beheersgroep Texel UA Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit Questions referred 1(a) Does Article 66(1) of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Regulation 508/2014’), given that it provides that the EMFF ‘shall’ support the preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 2 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (‘Regulation 1379/2013’), preclude a Member State from responding to a producer organisation which has submitted an application for such a grant, by arguing that the Member State concerned had not made available, either in its operational programme approved by the European Commission, or in the national rules for determining the eligibility of expenditure, the possibility of making such an application at the time of the submission of the application for a certain category of expenditure (in the present case: the costs of the preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans) or for a certain period (in the present case: the year 2014)? 1(b) Is it relevant to the answer to question 1(a) that the producer organisation is obliged, under Article 28(1) of Regulation No 1379/2013, to draw up a production and marketing plan and, after approval of the production and marketing plan by the Member State, to implement that production and marketing plan? 2. If the answer to question 1(a) is that Article 66(1) of Regulation 508/2014 precludes a Member State from responding to a producer organisation which has submitted an application for a grant for the preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans by arguing that the Member State concerned had not made available the possibility of making such an application at the time of the submission of the application, can the grant applicant concerned then rely directly on Article 66(1) of Regulation 508/2014 as the legal basis for a claim against his Member State on the provision of the grant in question? 3. If the answer to question 2 is that, in the case referred to in question 2, the grant applicant concerned can rely directly on Article 66(1) of Regulation 508/2014 as the legal basis for a claim against his Member State on the provision of the grant in question, does Article 65(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 3 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (‘Regulation 1303/2013’) then preclude the provision of a grant for the preparation and implementation of a production and implementation plan in a situation where the grant application is submitted after the production and marketing plan has been prepared and implemented? ____________ 1 OJ 2014 L 149, p. 1. 2 OJ 2013 L 354, p. 1. 3 OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320.