Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2024:476
Date: 2024-06-06
Language of the case: German
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Summary C-350/23 – 1 
Case C-350/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
7 June 2023 
Referring court: 
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
1 June 2023 
Appellant on a point of law: 
Vorstand für den Geschäftsbereich II der Agrarmarkt Austria 
Interested party: 
T F 
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Direct payments – Livestock aid 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Article 267 TFEU – Interpretation of European Union law 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. In the case of a livestock aid application within the meaning of point 15 of 
Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 640/2014, submitted for the year 2020 for the 
grant of coupled support, for which, for the purposes of Article 21(4) of 
Regulation (EU) No 809/2014, use is made of the information in the computerised 
database for bovine animals, is a notification that is made only after the expiry of 
the period of 15 days after the animals (bovine animals) have been moved to a 
mountain pasture pursuant to Article 2(2) and (4) of Commission Decision 
2001/672/EC of 20 August 2001, in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation 
(EC) No 1760/2000, an incorrect entry in the computerised database for bovine 
animals that, pursuant to Article 30(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 640/2014, is not 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-350/23 
 
2  
of relevance for the verification of the compliance with the eligibility conditions 
other than the condition referred to in Article 53(4) of Regulation (EU) 
No 639/2014 under the aid scheme or support measure concerned, with the result 
that the animals concerned are only to be considered not to be determined if such 
an incorrect entry is found during at least two checks within a period of 
24 months? 
2. If the first question is answered in the negative: 
For the purposes of Article 15(1) and Article 34 of Regulation (EU) No 640/2014, 
do the administrative penalties provided for in Chapter IV of Regulation (EU) 
No 640/2014 apply to the application for coupled support referred to in the first 
question where the farmer makes a notification in writing to the competent 
authority in accordance with Article 2(2) and (4) of Commission Decision 
2001/672/EC of 20 August 2001, in conjunction with Article 7(1) and (2) of 
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, concerning the movement of the animals to a 
mountain pasture, where it is evident from the notification that it is late with 
regard to the 15-day period laid down in those provisions, in so far as the 
competent authority has not previously informed the applicant of an intention to 
carry out an on-the-spot check and has also not already informed that applicant of 
any non-compliances in the aid application? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
- Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council: Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7 
- Commission Decision No 2001/672/EC of 20 August 2001: recital 3 and 
Articles 1 and 2 
- Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council: Articles 1 and 52 and Annex I 
- Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council: Articles 67, 68, 69 and 77 
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014: Article 21(4) 
- Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014: Article 53 
- Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014: Articles 2, 15, 30, 31 
and 34 
AGRARMARKT AUSTRIA 
 
3 
Provisions of national law relied on 
- Marktordnungsgesetz 2007 (Austrian Law on Market Organisation; ‘the 
MOG 2007’): Paragraph 8 (‘Direct payments’) and Paragraph 8f (‘Voluntary 
coupled support’) 
- Direktzahlungs-Verordnung 2015 (Austrian Direct Payment Regulation; ‘the 
Direct Payment Regulation 2015’): Paragraph 13 
‘Voluntary coupled support 
Paragraph 13. (1) Voluntary coupled support may be granted only in respect of 
bovine, ovine and caprine animals moved to a mountain pasture that have been 
identified and registered in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 […] . 
However, an animal is also deemed eligible for support if the information referred 
to in the second indent of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 has been 
communicated on the first day on which the respective animal has been moved to 
a mountain pasture. 
(2) Farmers shall apply for voluntary coupled support by submitting the 
“multiple application: areas” and the list of animals moved to a mountain pasture 
in accordance with Paragraph 22(5) of the Horizontale GAP-Verordnung 
[(Austrian CAP Horizontal Regulation)] and, for bovine animals, in conjunction 
with the information from the computerised database for bovine animals as 
regards the mountain-pasture/grazing notifications pursuant to Article 2 of 
Commission Decision 2001/672/EC […]. 
(3) The relevant number for the granting of voluntary coupled support shall be 
determined on the basis of the number of animals moved to a mountain pasture by 
the farmer concerned as at the reference date of 15 July. 
(4) The animals must remain on the mountain pasture for a minimum of 
60 days. The mountain-pasture period starts on the day the animals are moved to 
that pasture but no more than 15 days before making the mountain-pasture/grazing 
notification for bovine animals and/or submitting the list of animals moved to a 
mountain pasture. …’ 
- CAP Horizontal Regulation: Subparagraphs (1) and (2) of Paragraph 21 
(‘Submission’) and subparagraphs (1) and (5) of Paragraph 22 (‘Single 
application’) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The interested party submitted a single application (‘multiple application: areas’) 
for 2020, in which he applied, inter alia, for the granting of coupled support for 
bovine animals moved to a mountain pasture (grazing land). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-350/23 
 
4  
2 Two cows and two other bovine animals belonging to the interested party were 
moved to a mountain pasture (grazing land) on 28 May 2020. To that end, on 
1 June 2020 the interested party made a notification to Agrarmarkt Austria as the 
competent authority within the 15-day period applicable under national law. A 
notification of a calf (other bovine animal) born on 1 July 2020 was also made in 
time. 
3 By contrast, for 12 other bovine animals that had already been moved on 9 May 
2020, the notification was only made on 15 June 2020, i.e. after the expiry of that 
15-day period. 
4 By decision of 11 January 2021, the Vorstand für den Geschäftsbereich II der 
Agrarmarkt Austria (the board of directors for business division II of Agrarmarkt 
Austria) approved direct payments to the interested party in the amount of 
EUR 17 086.71. That amount consisted of a basic payment, a greening payment, 
and coupled support (amounting to EUR 119.44). 
5 In the grounds for that decision, Agrarmarkt Austria stated that the conditions for 
granting coupled support had not been met with regard to the 12 bovine animals 
moved on 9 May 2020 as the notification for them had not been made in time. 
Accordingly, pursuant to Article 31 of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014, the 12 
animals in respect of which there had been irregularities were to be compared with 
the bovine animals in respect of which the conditions for granting aid were met. 
That resulted in a 100% reduction, which meant that no coupled support could be 
granted in 2020. 
6 At the same time, it decided that (as a further penalty under the third subparagraph 
of Article 31(3) of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014) an amount of EUR 235.60 
would be withheld in order to be offset against the payments of the following 
three calendar years. 
7 In his appeal against that decision, the interested party objected to the refusal to 
pay coupled support. He referred to the fact that a third party had forwarded the 
notification about the bovine animals’ movement to a mountain pasture late 
without his knowledge. 
8 The Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Austria) upheld the 
appeal and ordered the ‘cancellation’ of both the 100% deduction from the 
coupled support and the imposition of a further penalty. That decision is the 
subject of an appeal on a point of law lodged by the board of directors for business 
division II of Agrarmarkt Austria (‘Agrarmarkt Austria’) on which the 
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court, Austria) – the referring 
court – has to rule. 
AGRARMARKT AUSTRIA 
 
5 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
9 The Federal Administrative Court gave the following reasons for its decision: 
Pursuant to Paragraph 8f(1) of the MOG 2007, there is an entitlement to coupled 
support in Austria for the movement of bovine animals to a mountain pasture. A 
simplified application procedure applies, in which the animals eligible for the 
payment are determined directly on the basis of the mountain-pasture/grazing 
notification recorded in the database for bovine animals. Compliance with the 
provisions for the identification of bovine animals is a prerequisite for support. No 
timely notification was made with regard to 12 bovine animals that had been 
moved to a mountain pasture on 9 May 2020. While it is true that those non-
compliances with notification requirements lead to a reduction of the support and 
a penalty for the purposes of Article 31 of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014, 
Article 15 of the regulation, according to which no administrative penalty is to be 
imposed if the beneficiary informs the competent authority in writing that the aid 
application or payment claim is incorrect or has become incorrect, has to be taken 
into account. However, that is the case here. It should be noted that the application 
for coupled support under Paragraph 13(2) of the Direct Payment Regulation 2015 
for bovine animals is made by way of a ‘multiple application: areas’ and 
subsequently by way of the list of animals moved to a mountain pasture and the 
notification pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the Rinderkennzeichnungs-Verordnung 
2008 (Austrian Cattle Identification Regulation 2008). Against that background, a 
late notification pursuant to the Cattle Identification Regulation 2008 also 
constitutes notification in writing of the fact that the application is incorrect for 
the purposes of Article 15 of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014. That 
interpretation is also supported by the principle that penalties must be 
proportionate. 
10 Agrarmarkt Austria contends that a late notification of the movement of the 
bovine animals means that no payment is to be granted for the bovine animals in 
question and, in addition, that a penalty within the meaning of Article 31 of 
Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 is to be imposed. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
11 On the first question: Having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 
24 May 2007, Maatschap Schonewille-Prins, C-45/05 (ECLI:EU:C:2007:296), the 
Supreme Administrative Court has no doubt that the failure to comply with the 
period for the notification of the movement to a mountain pasture or grazing land 
pursuant to Article 2(2) and (4) of Commission Decision 2001/672/EC, in 
conjunction with Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, 
constitutes a failure to comply with the identification and registration 
requirements pursuant to Regulation No 1760/2000, with the result that, within the 
meaning of Article 53(4) of Delegated Regulation No 639/2014 and – in the 
transposition of that provision in Austria – pursuant to Paragraph 13(1) of the 
Direct Payment Regulation 2015, a condition for coupled support is not met and 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-350/23 
 
6  
the animals are not considered to be determined within the meaning of point 18(a) 
of Article 2(2) of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014. 
12 However, Article 30(4)(c) of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 restricts the legal 
effects of non-compliances due to incorrect entries in the register, the animal 
passports or the computerised database for animals to the extent that the animals 
are only to be considered not to be determined if such errors are found during at 
least two checks within a period of 24 months, in so far as the entries are not of 
relevance for the verification of the compliance with the eligibility conditions 
other than the condition referred to in Article 53(4) of Delegated Regulation 
No 639/2014, i.e. the requirement to identify and register bovine animals provided 
for in Regulation No 1760/2000. 
13 Article 53(4) of Delegated Regulation No 639/2014 was given its wording by 
Regulation (EU) No 2016/1393. In recital 11 of that regulation it was stated that it 
was thereby clarified that ‘incorrect entries in the register, the animal passports 
and/or the computerised database for bovine animals of elements such as for 
instance gender, breed, colour or date should be considered as non-compliances 
after the first finding’ if the information concerned is ‘essential’ for the 
assessment of the animals’ eligibility under the aid scheme or support measure 
concerned. Otherwise, the animal concerned should be considered not to be 
determined if such incorrect entries are found on at least two checks within a 
period of 24 months. 
14 Since the national databases – which in Austria are maintained by Agrarmarkt 
Austria – are populated by the notifications made by the animal keepers, it appears 
obvious that the term ‘incorrect entries’ should be understood to mean errors 
caused by incorrect notifications or failures to notify. 
15 The purpose of the notification of the movement of animals is – among other 
things – the entry into the national computerised database for animals (the 
database for bovine animals) and constitutes part of the claim for coupled support. 
In the case at hand, the notification made on 15 June 2020 about the movement to 
a mountain pasture of 12 bovine animals of the interested party on 9 May 2020 
was correct in terms of its content. However, the notification was incorrect 
because it was made late, which constitutes a failure to comply with the 
identification and registration requirements under Regulation No 1760/2000. 
Nevertheless, apart from the condition pursuant to Article 53(4) of Delegated 
Regulation No 639/2014, that non-compliance does not seem to have affected 
other conditions for the granting of coupled support and thus the review of the 
application. If a late notification were to be classified as an incorrect entry in the 
computerised database for animals that is not of relevance for the (other) 
eligibility conditions for the purposes of Article 30(4)(c) of Delegated Regulation 
No 640/2014, the animals would thus be considered to have been determined. 
16 This could therefore be a case as envisaged in Article 30(4)(c) of Delegated 
Regulation No 640/2014. The interpretation of the provision – in particular of the 
AGRARMARKT AUSTRIA 
 
7 
term ‘incorrect entry in the computerised database for animals’ and the phrase ‘not 
of relevance for […] the respect of the eligibility conditions’ – does not appear to 
be sufficiently clear. 
17 On the second question: If the first question is answered in the negative and no 
coupled support is payable for the 12 bovine animals of the interested party that 
were moved to a mountain pasture on 9 May 2020, the follow-up question is 
whether the administrative penalties provided for in Chapter IV (Articles 15 to 34) 
of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 are to be imposed in addition. 
18 Article 15 of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 refers only to an error in the aid 
application itself, but not to a failure to comply with the identification and 
registration requirements regarding the animals. To that extent, the provision does 
not seem to cover the non-compliance on the part of the interested party. 
However, Article 34 of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 extends the 
application of Article 15 also to errors and omissions in relation to the entry in the 
computerised database. 
19 By means of a notification that the animals have been moved to a mountain 
pasture an entry is subsequently made in the national database that thus remedies 
the omission. With that in mind, Article 34 in conjunction with Article 15 of 
Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 might be applicable. That could also be borne 
out by the fact that the provisions seem to aim at favouring the animal keeper 
who, without being forced to do so, remedies misconduct, thereby avoiding 
administrative penalties. There does not seem to be a reason why, in that respect, a 
late notification such as the one made in the present case should entail more 
severe consequences than any other incorrect notification or failure to notify 
leading to an incorrect or incomplete entry in the national database. Furthermore, 
the principle of proportionality of penalties, as provided in Article 77(5) of 
Regulation No 1306/2013, could suggest that Article 34 of Delegated Regulation 
No 640/2014 is applicable in a case such as the one at hand.