Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2012:808
Date: 2012-12-13
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 13 December 2012 1. European Union Law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation 2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Reduction of or exclusion from payments in the event of non-compliance with cross-compliance rules — Infringement committed by the person to whom or from whom the agricultural land was transferred — Full attribution to the farmer who submitted the aid application — Eligibility — No breach of principle of proportionality (Council Regulation No 73/2009, Recital 3 and Art. 23(1); Commission Regulation No 796/2004, Recital 57) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 27) 2. Article 23(1) of Regulation No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations No 1290/2005, No 247/2006, No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003, is to be interpreted as meaning that non-compliance with cross-compliance rules by the person to whom or from whom the agricultural land was transferred, involving reduction of the total amount of direct payments or exclusion from direct support, must be attributed in full to the farmer submitting the aid application. That provision makes no distinction between cases of non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules due, on the one hand, to negligence and, on the other, to the intentional act of the person to whom or from whom the agricultural land was transferred. The attribution of the consequences of an act, committed by the person to whom or from whom the agricultural land was transferred, to a farmer who has submitted an aid application cannot, therefore, be excluded. In that regard, the penalty applicable in the event of non-compliance with those rules constitutes a specific administrative instrument forming an integral part of the scheme of agricultural aid and intended to promote compliance with those rules. It follows that the farmer who receives the aid, even if he does not actually enjoy possession of the parcel for which he has applied for the direct payment during the whole calendar year, must bear the risk of the attribution of a case of non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules on that parcel due either to the negligence or the intentional act of the person to whom or from whom the transfer of that parcel was made, which may result in a reduction of the total amount of direct payments or exclusion from direct support. That farmer may, therefore, be held liable for an infringement committed by the person to whom or from whom the agricultural land in question was transferred, including for the consequences of intentional acts. The liability of a farmer who submits an aid application, arising from a case of non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules due either to the negligence or the intentional act of the person to whom or from whom the agricultural land was transferred, complies with the requirement arising from recital 57 in the preamble to Regulation No 796/2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/20013 and laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the cross-compliance provided for in Regulation No 479/2008, as amended by Regulation No 1266/2008, according to which the reductions of the total amount of direct payments and the exclusions from direct support must be established having regard to the principle of proportionality. First, it serves to attain the aim underlying the system of reductions of the total amount of direct payments and exclusion from direct support, as noted in recital 3 in the preamble to Regulation No 73/2009, namely, the incorporation, in the common market organisations, of basic standards for the environment, food safety, animal health and welfare and good agricultural and environmental conditions. Secondly, since there is nothing to prevent the parties to a contract to transfer agricultural land from agreeing on more precise provisions regarding the financial risks of such a contract, including the risk of a possible reduction or exclusion from agricultural subsidies, and since, even if there is no such stipulation, the use of civil law mechanisms to protect the interests of farmers who have submitted an aid application cannot be excluded from the outset, it does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the intended objective. (see paras 32, 35, 37, 38, 40-42, 44, operative part)