Case C-188/11

Peter Hehenberger

v

Republik Österreich

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien)

‛Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Regulations (EC) Nos 1257/1999 and 817/2004 — Financial support for agri-environmental production methods — Checks — Beneficiary of agricultural aid — Fact of having prevented an on-the-spot check from being carried out — National legislation requiring the repayment of all aid paid over several years — Whether compatible’

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Support for rural development — Financial support for agri-environmental production methods — Grant subject to on-the-spot check

(Council Regulation No 1257/1999; Commission Regulation No 817/2004)

Regulation No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), read in conjunction with Regulation No 817/2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1257/1999, does not preclude national rules which provide that, where a farmer who is the beneficiary of financial support prevents an on-the-spot check of the land concerned, all the support already granted during the commitment period to that farmer in relation to an agri-environmental measure must be repaid, even where it has already been paid in respect of a number of years.

The conditions for the grant of support are not required simply for the year during which an on-the-spot check has been made, but throughout the entire commitment period in respect of which the support was granted, which means that, as laid down in Article 69 of Regulation No 817/2004, the on-the-spot checks connected with that support relate to all the commitments entered into. Conduct on the part of the farmer which makes it impossible to carry out those checks prevents verification that those conditions have been complied with throughout the commitment period.

Furthermore, where the European Union legislature lays down the condition’s governing eligibility for the grant of aid, exclusion as a result of failure to satisfy those conditions is not a penalty, but merely the consequence of failure to fulfil the conditions laid down by law.

(see paras 34, 37, 38, operative part)

Case C-188/11

Peter Hehenberger

v

Republik Österreich

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien)

‛Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Regulations (EC) Nos 1257/1999 and 817/2004 — Financial support for agri-environmental production methods — Checks — Beneficiary of agricultural aid — Fact of having prevented an on-the-spot check from being carried out — National legislation requiring the repayment of all aid paid over several years — Whether compatible’

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Support for rural development — Financial support for agri-environmental production methods — Grant subject to on-the-spot check

(Council Regulation No 1257/1999; Commission Regulation No 817/2004)

Regulation No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), read in conjunction with Regulation No 817/2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1257/1999, does not preclude national rules which provide that, where a farmer who is the beneficiary of financial support prevents an on-the-spot check of the land concerned, all the support already granted during the commitment period to that farmer in relation to an agri-environmental measure must be repaid, even where it has already been paid in respect of a number of years.

The conditions for the grant of support are not required simply for the year during which an on-the-spot check has been made, but throughout the entire commitment period in respect of which the support was granted, which means that, as laid down in Article 69 of Regulation No 817/2004, the on-the-spot checks connected with that support relate to all the commitments entered into. Conduct on the part of the farmer which makes it impossible to carry out those checks prevents verification that those conditions have been complied with throughout the commitment period.

Furthermore, where the European Union legislature lays down the condition’s governing eligibility for the grant of aid, exclusion as a result of failure to satisfy those conditions is not a penalty, but merely the consequence of failure to fulfil the conditions laid down by law.

(see paras 34, 37, 38, operative part)