CELEX: 62012CN0396
Language: en
Date: 2012-08-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-396/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 27 August 2012 — A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren; other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

8.12.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 379/13
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 27 August 2012 — A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren; other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland
   (Case C-396/12)
   2012/C 379/21
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Raad van State
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellants: A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren
   
      Other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               How should the term ‘intentional non-compliance’ in Article 51(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) …, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 (2) of 19 January 2009, in Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (3) of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1698/2005 …, and in Article 67(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (4) 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 …, be understood? In order to assume that intentional non-compliance has occurred, is it sufficient that there is non-compliance with long-established, settled policy as described in Article 8(2)(c) of the national Beleidsregels normenkader randvoorwaarden Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid (Netherlands Policy Rules governing the Cross-Compliance Standards Framework for the Common Agricultural Policy)?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Does European Union law preclude a ruling in a Member State that there is ‘intentional’ non-compliance with a scheme, within the terms of those regulations, on the ground that one or more of the following circumstances obtained:
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           intent has already been assumed in the cross-compliance requirement in respect of which there has been non-compliance;
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           the cross-compliance requirement concerned is complex;
                        
                     
                           (c)
                        
                        
                           long-established, settled policy exists;
                        
                     
                           (d)
                        
                        
                           there has been an active performance of an act, or a conscious omission of an act;
                        
                     
                           (e)
                        
                        
                           the farmer was previously informed of compliance deficiencies in respect of the cross-compliance requirement concerned; and
                        
                     
                           (f)
                        
                        
                           the extent of the non-compliance with the cross-compliance requirement points to intentional non-compliance?
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Can ‘intent’ with regard to the ‘non-compliance’ be attributed to the beneficiary of the subsidy if a third party carries out the work on the instructions of that beneficiary?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 100.
   
      (3)  OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74.
   
      (4)  OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18.