Arnold und Johann Harms als Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts v Freerk Heidinga.
Date: 2010-05-20
32. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts provided for by Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court (see, in particular, Case C‑138/08 Hochtief and Linde-Kca-Dresden  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
33. Furthermore, under the division of jurisdiction between the Courts of the European Union and the national courts, the Court must take account of the factual and legislative context, as described in the order for reference, in which the questions put to it are set (Case C‑153/02 Neri  [2003] ECR I‑13555, paragraph 35).
36. First, it must be borne in mind that, although a contract is characterised by the principle of freedom of the parties to arrange their own affairs, according to which, in particular, parties are free to enter into obligations with each other, limitations on freedom of contract may none the less arise from the applicable European Union rules (see, to that effect, Case C‑240/97 Spain  v Commission  [1999] ECR I‑6571, paragraph 99).
37. In particular, the contractual freedom of a person having payment entitlements does not permit him to enter into commitments which contradict the objectives of Regulation No 1782/2003.
38. In that regard, it must be recalled that, according to the second indent of Article 1 of Regulation No 1782/2003, the single payment scheme is an income support for farmers. As is stated in recital 21 in the preamble to that regulation, the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community is closely related to the maintenance of rural areas. That is why recital 24 in the preamble to the regulation states that it is appropriate to make the single payment conditional upon cross-compliance with environmental, food safety, animal health and welfare standards, as well as the maintenance of the farm in good agricultural and environmental condition. Indeed, the legislature has made disbursement of the aid subject to the condition that the farmer holds a number of hectares that are eligible for aid which corresponds to the number of payment entitlements (see, to that effect, Case C‑470/08 van Dijk  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 33).
39. It follows that a farmer cannot benefit from the aid scheme established by Regulation No 1782/2003 if he no longer fulfils the conditions laid down by that regulation. In the contrary case, he would obtain an advantage which is not in compliance with the objectives of the single payment scheme.
41. In a definitive transfer, as is the case in the main proceedings, a farmer who benefited from payment entitlements up until that point definitively waives his claims on the transfer of his entitlements to another farmer who then activates them for his benefit (see, to that effect, van Dijk , paragraph 35).
45. Such a provision, under which the transferee of payment entitlements is allocated, by agreement between the parties, only part of the payment entitlements which were formally transferred to him, cannot be regarded as being in compliance with the objectives of Regulation No 1782/2003, as set out in paragraph 38 of the present judgment, inasmuch as the object of the provision is to permit the transferor to continue to benefit from the support scheme established by that regulation without itself being subject to the obligations laid down in Title II, Chapter 1, of the regulation and to the conditions governing eligibility to receive aid referred to in Article 33 thereof.