Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:826
Date: 2015-12-17
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;General provisions;Wine
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 17 December 2015 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of the relevant aspects of EU law — Reformulation of the questions (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by the EAFRD — Support for rural development — Financial support for agri-environmental production methods — Aid in respect of the cultivation of a rare plant species — National legislation making the grant of that aid subject to the production of a certificate in relation to the species — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council Regulation No 1698/2005, as amended by Regulation No 473/2009; Commission Regulations No 1975/2006, as amended by Regulation No 484/2009, Arts 5, 10 and 11, and No 1122/2009, Art. 23) 3. EU law — Principles — Legal certainty — Definition — Rules with negative consequences for individuals — Requirement of clarity and precision — Legislative amendments — Lawfulness — Failure to take account of special circumstances 4. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by the EAFRD — Support for rural development — Financial support for agri-environmental production methods — Aid in respect of the cultivation of a rare plant species — National legislation making the grant of that aid subject to the production of a certificate in relation to the species — Non-compliance — Failure to fulfil obligations not leading to a penalty — Force Majeure — Definition — Assessment by the national court (Commission Regulation No 1122/2009, Arts 23(1), third para., and 58, third para.) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 30, 31) 2. Article 23 of Regulation No 1122/2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for by that regulation, as well as for the implementation of Regulation No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, read in conjunction with Regulation No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, as amended by Regulation No 473/2009, and Regulation No 1975/2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, as amended by Regulation No 484/2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation from requiring that the applicant for agri-environmental aid supply to the paying authority, at the same time as its aid application, a certificate in relation to the rare plant species which gives the applicant the right to payment of that aid, on the condition that that legislation permits the operators concerned to comply under reasonable conditions with the requirements of that legislation, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine. Such national legislation falls within the discretion conferred on the Member States pursuant to Articles 5, 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1975/2006 and furthers the objective of those provisions which is to ensure the effectiveness of the controls. However, the measures taken by Member States within their discretion cannot adversely affect the practical effect of the provisions of Regulations Nos 1698/2005, 1975/2006 and 1122/2009 and the general principles of EU law, in particular, the principles of proportionality and legal certainty. In that regard, it is for the national court to determine whether the detailed rules for the entry into force of the national legislation allowed the operators concerned to comply under reasonable conditions with the requirements of that legislation and, in particular, allowed the applicants for aid to request, obtain and submit the certificate at issue within the time limit set by that national legislation. Furthermore, it is for that court to determine whether the requirement of a certificate for rare plant species is not new and whether the legislation does not lay down a mandatory time limit for requesting the certificate from the competent authorities and, where appropriate, take those factors into account during its determination. (see paras 41, 42, 49-51, operative part 1) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 47, 48) 4. Article 58, third paragraph, of Regulation No 1122/2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for by that regulation, as well as for the implementation of Regulation No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector must be interpreted as meaning that the penalty imposed in that provision does not apply to an applicant for agri-environmental aid who does not attach a document to his aid application such as the certificate in respect of the rare plant species subject to the aid. Article 23(1), third paragraph, of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that such an omission leads, in principle, to the inadmissibility of the application for payment of agri-environmental aid. As the question whether the failure to fulfil obligations alleged against an applicant is caused by force majeure, and whether, therefore, the applicant could avoid the penalty laid down in the third paragraph of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1122/2009 entails an assessment of facts, it is for the referring court to determine whether that failure to fulfil obligations is the result of abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances, outside the control of the operator concerned, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care, could not have been avoided. (see paras 58, 59, operative part 2)