Case C-6/23, Baramlay: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 2 January 2023 — X v Agrárminiszter
Date: 2023-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU direct payments, administrative sanction, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, farmer, principle of proportionality








C_2023094EN.01002502.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 2 January 2023 — X v Agrárminiszter
(Case C-6/23, Baramlay) (1)

(2023/C 94/29)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant on a point of law: X

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Agrárminiszter

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 50(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (‘Regulation No 1307/2013’) (2) be interpreted as allowing a Member State to lay down, as an eligibility criterion, the requirement that the beneficiary of the support must work continuously as a farmer, as his or her main activity and as a sole trader, from the date of submission of the application for payment of 90 % of the support until the end of the operating period?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, is that eligibility criterion to be construed as a commitment by the beneficiary?










3.


If the second question is answered in the affirmative, must Articles 64(1) and 77(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (3) be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of non-compliance with the commitment, an administrative penalty may be imposed, the amount of which is to be determined, having regard to the principle of proportionality, on the basis of Articles 64(4)(b) and 77(4)(b) of that regulation, that is to say, that those provisions must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for recovery of the support in full, without account being taken of the period concerned by the non-compliance?










4.


Must Articles 64(2)(e) and 77(2)(e) [of Regulation No 1306/2013] be interpreted as meaning that ‘non-compliance … of a minor nature’ includes a situation in which the beneficiary of the support failed to comply for 176 days, over the 5-year period of the commitment, with the requirement relating to the continued exercise of the activity as his or her main activity, taking into account the fact that, throughout that period, he or she exercised only an agricultural activity, from which his or her income was derived?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608.

(3)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.