Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:546
Date: 2013-09-12
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 12 September 2013 1. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by the EAFRD — Support for rural development — Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises — Regulation No 65/2011 — Detailed rules of application — Factors constituting abusive practice — Verification a matter for the national court (Commission Regulation No 65/2011, Art. 4(8)) 2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by the EAFRD — Support for rural development — Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises — Regulation No 65/2011 — Request for payment rejected on the sole ground that an investment project in respect of which support under that scheme is sought is not functionally independent or that there is a legal link between the applicants for such support — Unlawful (Commission Regulation No 65/2011, Art. 4(8)) 1. Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for its application require both an objective and a subjective element. With regard to the first element, it is for the referring court to consider the objective evidence which may lead to the conclusion that the objective pursued by the support scheme of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) cannot be achieved. With regard to the second element, it is for the referring court to consider the objective evidence which may lead to the conclusion that, by artificially creating the conditions required for obtaining such a payment under the EAFRD support scheme, the applicant for such a payment intended exclusively to obtain an advantage contrary to the objectives of that scheme. In that regard, the referring court can take as its basis not only elements such as the legal, economic and/or personal links between the persons involved in similar investment projects, but also indications showing that there was intentional coordination between those persons. In addition, that court must, in particular, take into consideration the definition of a micro-enterprise, the creation and development of which are the object of the support referred to in Article 52 of Regulation No 1698/2005, as follows from Article 2(3) of the annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. (see paras 38, 43, operative part 1) 2. Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011 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, must be interpreted as precluding the rejection of an application for payment under the EAFRD support scheme on the sole ground that an investment project in respect of which support under that scheme is sought, is not functionally independent or that there is a legal link between the applicants for such support without the other objective elements of the particular case being taken into consideration. (see para. 48, operative part 2)