EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/22

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővarosí Bíróság lodged on 3 March 2010 — Bábolna Mezőgazdagasági Termelő és Fejlesztő Kereskedelmi Zrt v Mezőgazdagasági és Fejlesztő és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

(Case C-115/10)

2010/C 134/34

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővarosí Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bábolna Mezőgazdagasági Termelő és Fejlesztő Kereskedelmi Zrt

Defendants: Mezőgazdagasági és Fejlesztő és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Questions referred

1. May the conditions for Community aid under the Common Agricultural Policy (EAGGF) differ from the conditions for national supplementary aid, that is to say, may other, stricter rules than are applied to aid financed by the EAGGF apply to the conditions for national supplementary aid?

2. May the scope ratione personae, as regards the recipients of aid, of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (1) and Article 10(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 (2) be interpreted as meaning that there are only two conditions for the recipients of aid: (a) the (individual) group of agricultural producers (b) whose farm is situated in the territory of the Community will be entitled to receive aid?

3. May the above regulations be interpreted as meaning that an agricultural producer whose farm is in the territory of the Community but who wishes to cease activity in the future (after using the aid) is not entitled to aid?

4. In the light of the above two regulations, how is the status of such a producer under national law to be interpreted?

5. Does that status under national law extend to the legal status of an agricultural producer (group) undergoing any form of cessation of activity? Hungarian law provides for separate legal positions (statuses) in cases of cessation of activity (bankruptcy, liquidation or voluntary dissolution).

6. May the conditions for applications for (Community) single area payments and for supplementary national aid be subject to separate rules entirely independent of one another? What is the relationship between the principles, system and objectives of both types of aid?

7. May a group (person) be excluded from supplementary national aid where they otherwise meet the requirements for area aid?

8. Does the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 extend, under Article 1 thereof, to supplementary national aid, bearing in mind that where the EAGGF provides finance only in part, supplementary national aid provides finance as appropriate?

9. Does an agricultural producer whose farm, which functions legally and effectively, is in the territory of the Community, have a right to receive supplementary national aid?

10. If national law contains specific regulations for procedures for terminating the activity of commercial companies, do those regulations have any relevance from the point of view of Community aid (and national aid linked to it)?

11. Should Community legislation and national legislation on the functioning of the Common Agricultural Policy be interpreted as meaning that they have to create a complex legal system which can be interpreted uniformly and which functions on the basis of identical principles and requirements?

12. Should the scope of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 and Article 10(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 be interpreted as meaning that, from the point of view of aid, both the intention of the agricultural producer to cease activity in the future and the appropriate legal regime for that intention are wholly irrelevant?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 113).