Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2022:556
Date: 2022-07-14
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Cotton
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

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: 
22 January 2021 
Referring court: 
College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
22 December 2020 
Appellant: 
Sense Visuele Communicatie en Handel vof (also trading under the 
name De Scharrelderij) 
Defendant: 
Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit 
  
Subject of the action in the main proceedings 
The main proceedings concern a dispute between Sense Visuele Communicatie en 
Handel vof (also trading under the name ‘De Scharrelderij’; ‘the appellant’) and 
the Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Minister for Agriculture, 
Nature and Food Quality) relating to the defendant’s refusal to compensate the 
appellant for the damage that it allegedly suffered as a result of the erroneous 
information provided by the defendant concerning the application of a provision 
of EU law.  
Subject and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
This application under Article 267 TFEU concerns the application of the principle 
of the protection of legitimate expectations. More specifically, it concerns the 
question whether, if erroneous information supplied by a national administrative 
body involves an unambiguous provision of EU law, which excludes the 
possibility of invoking the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-36/21 
 
2  
under EU law, it is possible to assess, on the basis of the principle of the 
protection of legitimate expectations under national law, whether that body has 
acted unlawfully in failing to compensate the person concerned.  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Does EU law preclude an assessment on the basis of the principle of the protection 
of legitimate expectations under national law of whether a national administrative 
body has created expectations contrary to a provision of EU law and has thus 
acted unlawfully under national law in failing to compensate the injured party for 
the damage suffered as a result, where the injured party cannot successfully 
invoke the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations under EU law 
because it involves an unambiguous provision of EU law?  
Provision of EU law cited 
Article 50 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to 
farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural 
policy (‘Regulation No 1307/2013’)  
Brief summary of the facts and the procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The appellant is a general partnership with two partners: A and B. A was born on 
21 January 1977. The appellant has operated a pig-fattening farm since 2017.  
2 The defendant has entrusted the implementation of the common agricultural 
policy in the Netherlands to the Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland 
(Netherlands Enterprise Agency; ‘the RVO’). As the appellant did not have 
payment entitlements for 2018, it contacted the RVO several times to find out 
whether and how it could acquire those rights. It was apparent from the RVO’s 
answers that the appellant would be eligible for payment entitlements from the 
national reserve for young farmers since A was under 41 years of age at some 
point in 2018. The RVO has confirmed this information by email and the RVO’s 
website likewise stated in 2018 that, in order to qualify as a young farmer, the 
person had to be under 41 years of age in the claim year.  
3 On the basis of that information, the appellant applied in its single application of 
5 April 2018 for, inter alia, payment entitlements from the national reserve for 
young farmers. The defendant rejected this application on the basis that A was 
over 40 years of age in 2018 – having turned 41 on 21 January 2018 – and 
therefore did not fall under the age limit prescribed in Article 50(2)(b) of 
Regulation No 1307/2013. According to that provision, young farmers are persons 
who, in the year of submission, are ‘no more than 40 years of age’. By decision of 
SENSE VISUELE COMMUNICATIE EN HANDEL VOF (ALSO TRADING UNDER THE NAME DE SCHARRELDERIJ) 
 
3 
22 March 2019 (‘the contested decision’), the defendant dismissed the appellant’s 
objection to that rejection as unfounded.  
Main arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
4 The parties to the main proceedings do not dispute that, in 2018, the appellant was 
not eligible for payment entitlements from the national reserve for young farmers. 
The appellant, however, is of the view that, as a result of the erroneous 
information provided by the defendant, it had suffered damage which the 
defendant should compensate. After all, having proceeded on the assumption that 
it was entitled to an allocation of payment entitlements from the national reserve, 
it did not purchase any payment entitlements for 2018, thereby forgoing direct 
payments in that year. In the appellant’s view, since the contested decision did not 
take account of the abovementioned erroneous information and the resulting 
damage, it is contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations 
and is therefore unlawful.  
5 The defendant does not deny that the appellant was misinformed by the RVO. 
According to the defendant, however, it follows from the case-law of the Court of 
Justice that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot be 
invoked in respect of an unambiguous provision of EU law, such as Article 50 of 
Regulation No 1307/2013 (see judgments of 26 April 1988, Krücken, 316/86, 
EU:C:1988:201, and of 20 June 2013, Agroferm, C-568/11, EU:C:2013:407). An 
act of a national body entrusted with the application of EU law which is contrary 
to that law cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation, regardless of whether it 
was in good faith. 
Brief summary of the reasons for the referral 
6 The appellant was entitled to assume that the RVO represented the defendant’s 
view. It is plausible that it, on the basis of the information supplied by the RVO, 
applied for an allocation of payment entitlements from the national reserve for 
young farmers and did not purchase any payment entitlements. As a result, it 
missed direct payments and suffered damage. The issue in these proceedings is 
whether the defendant has acted contrary to the principle of the protection of 
legitimate expectations and has thus acted unlawfully in failing to compensate the 
appellant for that damage. The appellant therefore does not claim that the 
defendant should still allocate to it payment entitlements from the national reserve 
for young farmers, but seeks compensation for the damage it has suffered.  
7 It is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that where, in applying EU 
law, Member States are required to take account of the principle of the protection 
of legitimate expectations under EU law –  as is the case here – there is no scope 
for the additional application of the principle of the protection of legitimate 
expectations under national law (see judgments of 13 March 2008, Vereniging 
Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening, C-383/06, EU:C:2008:165, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-36/21 
 
4  
paragraphs 52 and 53, and of 20 June 2013, Agroferm, C-568/11, EU:C:2013:407, 
paragraph 51). The referring court infers from this that, even if the principle of the 
protection of legitimate expectations under national law afforded the appellant 
greater legal protection, it would not be able to invoke it successfully. This means 
that an expectation created by the national administrative body contrary to EU law 
cannot result in the appellant’s still being entitled to payment entitlements from 
the national reserve for young farmers.  
8 It is not clear to the referring court, however, whether the appellant is not entitled 
to compensation from the national administrative body for the damage suffered 
also as a result of the erroneous information provided by the defendant. In 
previous judgments, the referring court deemed there to be scope to assess, on the 
basis of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations under national 
law, whether the national administrative body had created expectations and had 
acted unlawfully in failing to compensate the person concerned for the damage 
suffered as a result. 
9 Also Advocate General Mancini, in his Opinion of 11 February 1988 (Krücken, 
316/86, EU:C:1988:78), explained that the finding that the trader in question did 
not qualify for protection on the basis of the principle of the protection of 
legitimate expectations does not deprive the person who has suffered damage of 
the possibility of bringing an action for damages before the national courts against 
the bodies responsible for that loss. Furthermore, the Netherlands literature – in 
reference to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 1992, Bélovo 
(C-187/91, EU:C:1992:333, paragraph 11) – does not exclude the possibility that 
expectations created by a national administrative body contrary to EU law may 
give rise to an action for damages under national law. 
10 Not all the arguments set out by Advocate General Kokott in her Opinion of 
24 January 2013 (Agroferm, C-568/11, EU:C:2013:35) appear to preclude such 
compensation. The application of the EU law principle of the protection of 
legitimate expectations ensures that the uniform application of EU law in all 
Member States and that – in short – expectations contrary to EU law cannot lead 
to the individual’s acquiring entitlements that are contrary to that EU law. 
Compensation payable by the national administrative body, however, does not 
adversely affect the EU budget, nor does it lead to serious distortions of 
competition between Member States. On the other hand, the argument referred to 
by Advocate General Kokott according to which the principle of the protection of 
legitimate expectations under EU law must be applied uniformly irrespective of 
whether the EU institutions or Member States apply EU law in specific cases 
appears to militate in favour of the exclusive application of the principle of the 
protection of legitimate expectations under EU law, which therefore leaves no 
scope for the application of the principle of the protection of legitimate 
expectations under national law. 
11 In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is not beyond reasonable doubt that 
EU law precludes the assessment, on the basis of the principle of the protection of 
SENSE VISUELE COMMUNICATIE EN HANDEL VOF (ALSO TRADING UNDER THE NAME DE SCHARRELDERIJ) 
 
5 
legitimate expectations under national law, of whether, contrary to a provision of 
EU law, a national administrative body has created expectations and has thus 
acted unlawfully under national law in failing to compensate the injured party for 
the damage suffered as a result, where the injured party cannot successfully 
invoke the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations under EU law 
because it involves an unambiguous provision of EU law. Since the interpretation 
of EU law on this point is necessary for the resolution of the dispute before it, the 
referring court refers the question formulated above to the Court of Justice for a 
preliminary ruling.