Case C-6/23,  Baramlay : Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 April 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria – Hungary) – X v Agrárminiszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Common agricultural policy (CAP) – European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – Applicability ratione materiae – Applicability ratione temporis – Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 – Article 22 – Support for the setting up of young farmers – Article 71 – Eligibility – Conditions for granting – Legislation of a Member State laying down the obligation to work continuously as a farmer, as a main activity and as a sole trader – Additional eligibility conditions – Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 – Article 63 – Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 – Article 35 – Eligibility criterion – Commitment)
Date: 2024-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EU direct payments, administrative sanction, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, farmer, principle of proportionality, young farmer








C_202403284EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3284


3.6.2024






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 April 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria – Hungary) – X v Agrárminiszter


(Case C-6/23,
                (1)
Baramlay
                (2)
)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Applicability ratione materiae - Applicability ratione temporis - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Article 22 - Support for the setting up of young farmers - Article 71 - Eligibility - Conditions for granting - Legislation of a Member State laying down the obligation to work continuously as a farmer, as a main activity and as a sole trader - Additional eligibility conditions - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 63 - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 - Article 35 - Eligibility criterion - Commitment)
(C/2024/3284)
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

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 22(1) and Article 71(3) 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)
must be interpreted as allowing a Member State to impose a condition of eligibility for support for the setting up of young farmers according to which the beneficiary of that support is required to work as a farmer as his or her main activity, from the date of submission of the application for payment of 90% of the amount of that support until the end of the operating period of that activity.










2.


Article 63(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, and Article 35(1) to (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance,
must be interpreted as meaning that, first, a condition of eligibility for support for the setting up of young farmers, laid down by the legislation of a Member State, according to which the beneficiary of that support is required to work as a farmer as his or her main activity, from the date of submission of the application for payment of 90% of the amount of that support until the end of the operating period of that activity, may constitute a ‘commitment’ within the meaning of those provisions, and, second, in such a situation, Article 35(2) and (3) of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 precludes non-compliance with such a commitment from resulting in that beneficiary being required to repay the full amount of the support, without account being taken, inter alia, of the duration of the period concerned by that non-compliance.






(1)  
            OJ C 94, 13.3.2023.

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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3284/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)