Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:567
Date: 2013-09-19
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Tobacco
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Greece

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 19 September 2013 1. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Common rules — Single payment scheme — Regional and optional implementation — Additional payment for specific types of farming and quality production — Setting of retention rates — Discretion granted to the Member States — Discrimination between producers or consumers — None (Art. 34 EC; Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Art. 69) 2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Priority over the objectives of the Treaty in the field of competition (Art. 36 EC) 3. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Discretion of the European Union institutions — Judicial review — Limits (Arts 34 EC and 37 EC) 4. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Common rules — Single payment scheme — Regional and optional implementation — Additional payment for specific types of farming and quality production — Setting of retention rates — Discretion granted to the Member States – Removal of the common character of agricultural policy — None (Art. 32 EC; Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Art. 69) 1. The examination of Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, a provision which gives Member States the option of retaining up to 10% of the component of national ceilings for each product sector in order to make an additional payment for specific types of farming which are important for the protection or enhancement of the environment or for improving the quality and marketing of agricultural products, has disclosed nothing capable of affecting its validity in the light of Article 34 EC. It is clear that Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003 does not itself set different conditions according to Member States or producers, but merely grants all Member States, under the same terms and conditions, a certain discretion for the purpose of making additional payments under the common agricultural policy reform. That authorisation granted to the Member States, first, is strictly limited in scope and subject to a series of conditions of both a procedural and substantive nature and, second, is a temporary measure to facilitate the transition to the single payment scheme. The fact that the adoption of a measure within the framework of the common organisation of the market may affect producers in different ways because of their individual production or local conditions does not constitute discrimination prohibited by the EC Treaty if the measure is determined on the basis of objective criteria which are adapted to meet the needs of the general common organisation of the market. Similarly, the prohibition on discrimination is not concerned with any disparities in treatment which may result, between the Member States, from divergences existing between the legislation of the various Member States, so long as that legislation affects equally all persons subject to it. (see paras 20, 23, 29, 34, 35, 44, operative part) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 39) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 40, 41) 4. The discretion granted to the Member States to set a retention rate to be applied to the national ceiling for aid that is appropriate for the sector concerned in order to make an additional payment does not have the purpose or effect of eliminating the common character of agricultural policy, but is simply a power conferred on national authorities to put in place certain rules which the European Union legislature deemed appropriate in connection with the introduction of the single payment system. The purpose of the additional payment, which is temporary and limited to 10% of the component of national ceilings, is, first, to encourage farmers to comply with the requirements to improve the quality of their products and to protect the environment, by way of recompense for their adapting to the new common agricultural policy requirements, and, second, to mitigate the effects which the transition from the direct payments scheme to the single payment scheme entails in any event for some product sectors. (see paras 46, 47)