Case C-396/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 27 August 2012 — A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren; other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland
Date: 2012-08-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, aid to agriculture, fund (EU), rural development, terms for aid








C_2012379EN.01001301.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 27 August 2012 — A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren; other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland
(Case C-396/12)
2012/C 379/21
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren

Other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

Questions referred







1.


How should the term ‘intentional non-compliance’ in Article 51(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) …, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 (2) of 19 January 2009, in Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (3) of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1698/2005 …, and in Article 67(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (4) of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers …, be understood? In order to assume that intentional non-compliance has occurred, is it sufficient that there is non-compliance with long-established, settled policy as described in Article 8(2)(c) of the national Beleidsregels normenkader randvoorwaarden Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid (Netherlands Policy Rules governing the Cross-Compliance Standards Framework for the Common Agricultural Policy)?










2.


Does European Union law preclude a ruling in a Member State that there is ‘intentional’ non-compliance with a scheme, within the terms of those regulations, on the ground that one or more of the following circumstances obtained:






(a)


intent has already been assumed in the cross-compliance requirement in respect of which there has been non-compliance;










(b)


the cross-compliance requirement concerned is complex;










(c)


long-established, settled policy exists;










(d)


there has been an active performance of an act, or a conscious omission of an act;










(e)


the farmer was previously informed of compliance deficiencies in respect of the cross-compliance requirement concerned; and










(f)


the extent of the non-compliance with the cross-compliance requirement points to intentional non-compliance?














3.


Can ‘intent’ with regard to the ‘non-compliance’ be attributed to the beneficiary of the subsidy if a third party carries out the work on the instructions of that beneficiary?






(1)  OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 100.

(3)  OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74.

(4)  OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18.