Case C-485/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Identification system for agricultural parcels — Eligibility conditions for aid — Administrative controls — On-the-spot checks — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Determination of the areas eligible for aid — Remote sensing — Physical inspection of agricultural parcels)
Date: 2014-04-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative check, aid system, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, farmers' income, plot, remote sensing








C_2014175EN.01000801.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/8





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
(Case C-485/12) (1)

((Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Direct support schemes - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Identification system for agricultural parcels - Eligibility conditions for aid - Administrative controls - On-the-spot checks - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Determination of the areas eligible for aid - Remote sensing - Physical inspection of agricultural parcels))
2014/C 175/09
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 32 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) — On-the-spot checks in relation to single applications under the area payment scheme — Remote sensing — Where the competent authority has found, on the basis of aerial photographs, that the application for aid submitted by a farmer is inaccurate.

Operative part of the judgment

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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 972/2007 of 20 August 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that, where, owing to the fact that the identification system for agricultural parcels is in the course of being updated, automated cross-checks intended to verify the eligibility for aid of parcels as declared in the single payment application submitted by a farmer are supplemented by verification on the basis of recent aerial photographs, which results in the detection of inaccuracies in the application submitted, the competent authority is not required to carry out a physical inspection in the field, but, in accordance with Article 24(2) of that regulation, enjoys discretion as to the measures to be taken as a result. In particular, that authority cannot be required to carry out a physical measurement of the parcels in question where it has no doubts as to the measurement data inferred from the aerial photographs available.


(1)  OJ C 26, 26. 1. 2013.