Case C-396/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — A. M. van der Ham, A. H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren v College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (Common agricultural policy — Financing by the EAFRD — Support for rural development — Reduction or discontinuance of payments in the event of non-compliance with the rules on cross-compliance — Concept of ‘intentional non-compliance’ )
Date: 2014-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, common agricultural policy, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, reimbursement of aid, rural development








C_2014112EN.01000701.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/7





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — A. M. van der Ham, A. H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren v College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland
(Case C-396/12) (1)

((Common agricultural policy - Financing by the EAFRD - Support for rural development - Reduction or discontinuance of payments in the event of non-compliance with the rules on cross-compliance - Concept of ‘intentional non-compliance’))
2014/C 112/08
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


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

Defendant: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 51(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 of 19 January 2009 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 100), of Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74), and of Article 67(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 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 (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18) — Support for rural development — Reduction or discontinuance of payments in the event of non-compliance with the rules — Concept of intentional non-compliance.

Operative part of the judgment







1)


The concept of ‘intentional non-compliance’ within the meaning of Article 67(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 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 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, must be interpreted as requiring an infringement of the rules on cross-compliance by a beneficiary of aid who seeks a state of non-compliance with those rules or who, without seeking such a state, accepts the possibility that it may occur. European Union law does not preclude a national provision which, like that at issue in the main proceedings, gives a high probative value to the criterion of the existence of a long-established, settled policy, in so far as the beneficiary of aid has the possibility if appropriate of adducing evidence of the lack of intent in his conduct;










2)


Article 67(1) of Regulation No 796/2004 and Article 23 of Regulation No 1975/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an infringement of the requirements of cross-compliance by a third party who carries out work on the instructions of a beneficiary of aid, the beneficiary may be held responsible for the infringement if he acted intentionally or negligently as a result of the choice or the monitoring of the third party or the instructions given to him, independently of the intentional or negligent nature of the conduct of the third party.






(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.