Anssi Ketelä.
Date: 2012-10-25
34. In order to answer those questions it must be recalled, as a preliminary point, that, according to settled case-law, the need for a uniform application of European Union law and the principle of equality require that the terms of a provision of European Union law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union (see, in particular, Joined Cases C-424/10 and C-425/10 Ziolkowski [2011] ECR I-14035, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
35. Furthermore, it should also be recalled that, if, by virtue of the very nature of regulations and of their function in the system of sources of European Union law, the provisions of regulations generally have immediate effect in the national legal systems without its being necessary for the national authorities to adopt measures of application, however, some of their provisions may necessitate, for their implementation, the adoption of measures of application by the Member States (see, in particular, Case C-316/10 Danske Svineproducenter  [2011] ECR I-13721, paragraphs 39 and 40 and the case-law cited).
36. In that regard, it follows from settled case-law that Member States may adopt rules for the application of a regulation if they do not obstruct its direct applicability and do not conceal its Community nature, and if they specify that a discretion granted to them by that regulation is being exercised, provided that they adhere to the parameters laid down under it ( Danske Svineproducenter , paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
37. It is by referring to the relevant provisions of the regulation concerned, interpreted in the light of the objectives of that regulation, that it may be determined whether they prohibit, require or allow Member States to adopt certain measures of application and, particularly in the latter case, whether the measure concerned comes within the scope of the discretion that each Member State is recognised as having ( Danske Svineproducenter , paragraph 43).
38. In the light of those preliminary considerations, it is appropriate, first of all, to note that it is clear from recital 61 in the preamble to and Article 71(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005 that, while the rules on eligibility of expenditure are set, as a general rules, at national level, that is the case only subject to the special conditions laid down under that regulation for certain rural development measures.
39. The setting-up aid for young farmers is such a measure and the condition of eligibility relating to setting-up for the first time on an agricultural holding as head of the holding laid down by Article 22(1)(a) of Regulation No 1698/2005 is a specific condition for that measure. Thus, in order to determine the scope of that condition of eligibility, it is necessary to have regard first and foremost to the terms of the provision interpreted, where necessary, in the light of the context to which it belongs and the objectives of Regulation No 1698/2005.
42. It must be held that the wording of Article 22(1)(a) of Regulation No 1698/2005 which refer to ‘persons who … are setting up for the first time on an agricultural holding as head of the holding’ does not prejudge the legal form, corporate or not, taken by such a holding (see, by analogy, Case C-162/91 Tenuta il Bosco  [1992] ECR I-5279, paragraph 12).
44. Such an exclusion might also infringe the principle of non-discrimination in Article 40(2) TFEU (see, to that effect, Tenuta il Bosco , paragraph 16).
51. Having regard to the foregoing, it must be recalled that according to settled case-law, the meaning and scope of terms for which European Union law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (see to that effect, in particular, Case C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann  [2008] ECR I-11061, paragraph 17, and Ziolkowski , paragraph 34).
52. As regards the words used, it must be observed in that regard that an expression such as ‘head of the holding’ may vary according to the specific objectives pursued by the rules of European Union law in question (see, by analogy, regarding the concept of ‘agricultural holding’, Case 85/77 Azienda avicola Sant’Anna  [1978] ECR 527, paragraph 9).
56. In such a context, while it remains open to the Member States to specify the conditions from which it may be determined that an applicant for aid has the ‘head of the holding’, so as to strengthen legal certainty by increasing the predictability of the requirements laid down by Article 22(1)(a) of Regulation No 1698/2005, provided that such conditions do not go beyond the framework they aim to set out and therefore aim, in compliance with that provision and the objectives pursued by that regulation to ensure that the applicant has an effective and long-term control and management of the agricultural holding (see, by analogy, Case C-113/02 Commission  v Netherlands  [2004] ECR I-9707, paragraph 19, and Danske Svineproducenter , paragraphs 49 and 51).