EN
C 94/26
Official Journal of the European Union
13.3.2023
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) (2) (3)
The name of the present case is a fictitious name.
It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608.
OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.
Appeal brought on 18 January 2023 by Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-655/19, Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission (Case C-29/23 P) (2023/C 94/30) Language of the case: Italian Parties Appellants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA, Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (represented by: D. Fosselard, avocat and avvocato, D. Slater, avocat and Solicitor, and G. Carnazza, avvocata) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should: — set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2022 in Case T-655/19, Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission; — give final judgment in the matter, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and annul Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 relating to an alleged infringement of Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community issued in Case AT.37956 — Reinforcing bars, in so far as that decision concerns the appellants;