CELEX: 62014CA0330
Language: en
Date: 2015-12-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-330/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Gergely Szemerey v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter, successor in law to Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Rural development support measures — Agri-environmental payments — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Articles 23 and 58 — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 — Aid in respect of the cultivation of a rare plant species — Application for payment — Contents — Certificate requirement — Penalties for non-presentation)

22.2.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 68/10
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Gergely Szemerey v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter, successor in law to Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Case C-330/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Rural development support measures - Agri-environmental payments - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Articles 23 and 58 - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 - Aid in respect of the cultivation of a rare plant species - Application for payment - Contents - Certificate requirement - Penalties for non-presentation))
   (2016/C 068/13)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Gergely Szemerey
   
      Defendant: Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter, successor in law to Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for by that regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, read in conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 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 473/2009 of 25 May 2009 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 484/2009 of 9 June 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings from requiring that the applicant for agri-environmental aid supply to the paying authority, at the same time as its aid application, a certificate in relation to the rare plant species which gives the applicant the right to payment of that aid, on the condition that that legislation permits the operators concerned to comply under reasonable conditions with the requirements of that legislation, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 58, third paragraph, of Regulation No 1122/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the penalty imposed in that provision does not apply to an applicant for agri-environmental aid who does not attach a document to his aid application, such as the certificate at issue in the main proceedings, which entitles him to payment of that aid. Article 23(1), third paragraph, of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that such an omission leads, in principle, to the inadmissibility of the application for payment of agri-environmental aid.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.