CELEX: 62014CN0103
Language: en
Date: 2014-03-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-103/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 March 2014  — Bronius Jakutis and Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB v Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos and Lietuvos valstybė

12.5.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 142/26
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 March 2014 — Bronius Jakutis and Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB v Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos and Lietuvos valstybė
   (Case C-103/14)
   2014/C 142/34
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   
      Referring court
   
   Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Bronius Jakutis, Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB
   
      Defendants: Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos, Lietuvos valstybė
   
      Third parties: Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė, Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Regarding appraisal, under Article 10(1) of Regulation No 73/2009, (1) applied in conjunction with Articles 7 and 121, of the level of direct payments in the old and new EU Member States:
               
                           a.
                        
                        
                           Must Article 7(1) of Regulation No 73/2009, applied in conjunction with Article 10(1) and Article 121, be interpreted as meaning that in 2012 the level of direct payments of the old EU Member States that are in excess of EUR 5 000 is 90%?
                        
                     
                           b.
                        
                        
                           If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does that mean that in 2012 the level of direct payments in the new and old EU Member States has not equalised, on the basis of the content and objectives of Article 10(1) and Article 121 of Regulation No 73/2009?
                        
                     
                           c.
                        
                        
                           Are the end of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 73/2009 (‘… taking into account any reductions applied under Article 7(1)’) and Commission working document DS/2011/14/REV 2, in which for the purposes of comparison a different basis for direct payments is laid down — in the new EU Member States the level of direct payments is appraised without modulation having been applied (90% in accordance with Article 121), whilst in the old EU Member States modulation has been applied (100% minus 10% in accordance with Article 7(1)) — contrary to the Act of Accession and to principles of EU law, inter alia the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of sound administration, of fair competition and of non-discrimination, as well as to the objectives of the common agricultural policy, which are laid down in Article 39 TFEU?
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Regarding the incompatibility of Article 10(1) and the end of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009, and the measures of EU law adopted on their basis, with the Act of Accession and European Union principles:
               
                           a.
                        
                        
                           Are the end of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 73/2009 (‘… taking into account any reductions applied under Article 7(1)’) and the end of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) (‘… taking into account, from 2012, the application of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 10’), as well as Commission working document DS/2011/14/REV 2 and Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final which were adopted on their basis, contrary to the Act of Accession, which does not prescribe the modulation of direct payments and the reduction of complementary national direct payments in the new EU Member States and/or the year in which equalisation of direct payments in the new and old EU Member States is presumed?
                        
                     
                           b.
                        
                        
                           Are Article 10(1) and the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009, as well as Commission working document DS/2011/14/REV 2 and Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final, inasmuch as, in accordance with their content and objectives, the modulation of direct payments and the reduction of complementary national direct payments are applied in 2012 in the new EU Member States, which receive considerably less support than the old EU Member States, contrary to principles of EU law, inter alia the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of fair competition and of non-discrimination, and to the objectives of the common agricultural policy, which are laid down in Article 39 TFEU, in particular the objective of increasing agricultural productivity?
                        
                     
                           c.
                        
                        
                           Does the amendment of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009 (‘taking into account, from 2012, the application of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 10’), which was carried out under the corrigendum procedure (OJ 2010 L 43, p. 7) (an amendment by which an alteration of a nontechnical nature was made, and the content of the provision was fundamentally amended as it was laid down that equalisation of direct payments in the new and old EU Member States was presumed in 2012), infringe principles of EU law, inter alia the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty, of sound administration and of non-discrimination?
                        
                     
                           d.
                        
                        
                           Does the word ‘dydis’ [‘level’] used in Article 1c set out in point 27(b) of Chapter 6.A (‘Agriculture’) of Annex II to the Act of Accession have the same meaning as the word ‘lygis’ [‘level’] in the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009?
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Are the Commission implementing decision and Commission working document DS/2011/14/REV 2, which were not published in the Official Journal of the European Union and do not state adequate reasons (they were adopted in reliance solely upon the presumption that in 2012 the level of direct payments in the new and old EU Member States equalised), contrary to the Act of Accession and in breach of principles of EU law, inter alia the principles of legal certainty, of the protection of legitimate expectations and of sound administration? If so, must Article 1(4) of the Commission implementing decision be annulled as contrary to Regulation No 73/2009 and the Act of Accession?
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).