Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle eG v Landrat des Landkreises Oder-Spree.
Date: 2013-03-14
23. As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is among the fundamental principles of the European Union (see Case 112/80 Dürbeck  [1981] ECR 1095, paragraph 48; Case C‑369/09 P ISD Polska and Others v Commission  [2011] ECR I‑2011, paragraph 122, and Case C‑335/09 P Poland v Commission  [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 180).
24. The right to rely on that principle extends to any person with regard to whom an institution of the European Union has given rise to justified hopes (see, to that effect, Case 265/85 Van den Bergh en Jurgens and Van Dijk Food Products (Lopik) v EEC  [1987] ECR I‑1155, paragraph 44; ISD Polska and Others v Commission , paragraph 123, and Case C‑426/10 P Bell & Ross v OHIM  [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 56).
25. In whatever form it is given, information which is precise, unconditional and consistent and comes from authorised and reliable sources constitutes assurances capable of giving rise to such hopes. However, a person may not plead breach of that principle unless he has been given precise assurances by the administration (Case C‑221/09 AJD Tuna [2011] ECR I‑1655, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).
26. Similarly, if a prudent and alert economic operator can foresee the adoption of a European Union measure likely to affect his interests, he cannot plead the principle of protection of legitimate expectations if the measure is adopted (see, to that effect, Van den Bergh en Jurgens and Van Dijk Food Products (Lopik) v EEC , paragraph 44, and AJD Tuna , paragraph 73).
41. In that regard, it should be noted from the outset that the principle of non‑discrimination is a general principle of European Union law and, in the field of agriculture, is embodied in the second subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU (see, to that effect, Case C‑535/03 Unitymark and North Sea Fishermen’s Organisation  [2006] ECR I‑2689, paragraph 53, and Case C‑453/08 Karanikolas and Others [2010] ECR I‑7895, paragraph 49).
42. That principle requires comparable situations not to be treated differently and different situations not to be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified (Case C‑313/04 Franz Egenberger [2006] ECR I‑6331, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
43. As regards the extent of the monitoring of observance of that principle, it should be noted that the European Union legislature enjoys a wide discretionary power in matters concerning agriculture corresponding to the political responsibilities given to it by Articles 40 to 43 TFEU. Consequently, judicial review must be limited to verifying that the measure in question is not vitiated by any manifest error or misuse of powers and that the authority concerned has not manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretionary power (see, inter alia, AJD Tuna , paragraph 80).
44. Therefore, it is for the Court to verify, first, whether the difference in treatment between farmers depending on the size of the agricultural area of land farmed, such as provided for in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 73/2009, can be justified by objective reasons which are not manifestly inappropriate (see, to that effect, Poland v Commission , paragraph 128).
52. However, according to settled-case law, such a declaration cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting a provision of secondary legislation where, as in the present case, no reference is made to the content of the declaration in the wording of the provision in question and it does not, therefore, have any legal significance (see, inter alia, Case C‑292/89 Antonissen  [1991] ECR I‑745, paragraph 18, and Case C‑149/11 Leno Merken  [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 46).