9.11.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/7

(Case C-434/12) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Common agricultural policy - EAFRD - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Support for rural development - Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises - Concept of ‘artificially created conditions’ - Abuses - Evidence)

2013/C 325/10

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Slancheva sila EOOD

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ Razplashtatelna agentsia

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article (4)(8) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of the Commission of 27 January 2011, laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 as regards the implementation of control procedures and compliance in measures to support rural development (OJ 2005 L 25, p. 8) — Support for rural Development — Concept of ‘artificially created circumstances’ — Admissibility of national law according to which, for the recognition of conditions ‘artificially created’ a legal link between the aid applicants is required and Article 4(8) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 is applied subject to three cumulative conditions — Submission of requests for assistance by different applicants with an effective link and using independent neighbouring land which previously formed a single field — Need for a deliberate coordination between candidates and/or third parties in order to gain an advantage — Criteria for the recognition of the benefit within the meaning of Article 4(8) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 4(8) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for its application require both an objective and a subjective element. With regard to the first of those elements, it is for the referring court to consider the objective circumstances of the case in question which may lead to the conclusion that the objective pursued by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) support scheme cannot be achieved. With regard to the second element, it is for the referring court to consider the objective evidence which may lead to the conclusion that, by artificially creating the conditions required for obtaining such a payment under the EAFRD support scheme, the applicant for such a payment intended exclusively to obtain an advantage contrary to the objectives of that scheme. In that regard, the referring court can take as its basis not only elements such as the legal, economic and/or personal links between the persons involved in similar investment projects, but also indications showing that there was intentional coordination between those persons.

2.Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011 must be interpreted as precluding the rejection of an application for payment under the EAFRD support scheme on the sole ground that an investment project in respect of which support under that scheme is sought, is not functionally independent or that there is a legal link between the applicants for such support without the other objective elements of the particular case being taken into consideration.

(1) OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.