(Action for annulment – EAGGF – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Support for producers of certain arable crops – Common organisation of the market in beef and veal)

Summary of the Judgment

(Council Regulation No 805/68, Art. 30a; Council Regulation No 1765/92, Art. 15(3))

(see paras 19, 22, 24, 38-39, 41)

1.Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1765/92 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops and Article 30a of Regulation No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, which require the compensatory payments and premiums provided for under the regulations in question, the purpose of which is to grant compensation to the farmers affected by the consequences of the reform of the common agricultural policy, to be paid in full to the beneficiaries, prohibit national authorities from making a deduction from the payments made or from demanding the payment of administrative fees relating to applications and having the effect of reducing the amount of the aid.

The system under which persons intending to apply for Community aid must pay a fee in order to obtain from the national authorities a map which has to be attached to their application falls within that prohibition. The prohibition on any deduction extends to all charges which are directly and inseparably linked to the amounts disbursed to farmers and not only to deductions which are actually made on the occasion of payments.

If the provisions cited above are not to be rendered redundant, the fact that some farmers applied for both aid under Regulation No 1765/92 or Regulation No 805/68 and agro-environmental or regional aid for the same areas does not, moreover, have any bearing on the prohibition on the Member States from making deductions from the amounts received by the beneficiaries as aid for arable crops or fodder areas.

(see para. 28)

2.The fact that the Commission did not carry out, in a check made in connection with the management of the accounts of the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, the correction due in respect of a previous year, but tolerated the irregularities on grounds of fairness, does not in any way permit the Member State concerned to demand that the same position be taken with regard to the irregularities with respect to the following financial year by virtue of the principle of legal certainty or the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

(see para. 28)

<br> <br> <br>

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)<br>7 October 2004(1)

(Action for annulment – EAGGF – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Support for producers of certain arable crops – Common organisation of the market in beef and veal)

In Case C-312/02,ACTION for annulment under Article 230 EC,lodged at the Court on 4 September 2002,

Kingdom of Sweden, represented by K. Renman, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Simonsson, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges,

Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, <br>Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the written procedure,after considering the observations submitted by the parties,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 17 June 2004,

gives the following

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 (OJ 2014 L 124, p. 1) (‘Directive 2011/92’).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Waltham Abbey Residents Association and, on the other hand, An Bord Pleanála (Planning Board, Ireland; ‘the Board’), Ireland and the Attorney General (Ireland), concerning authorisation granted by the Board for a strategic residential housing development.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

Article 4 of Directive 2011/92 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

The criteria of Annex III shall be taken into account, where relevant, when compiling the information in accordance with points 1 to 3.’

Annex III to that directive sets out the ‘criteria to determine whether the projects listed in Annex II should be subject to an environmental impact assessment’.

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]

…

When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

It suffices to state, as the Swedish Government itself conceded in its reply to the objection raised by the Commission in the defence, that the wording of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 as amended by Regulation No 2245/1999, which entered into force on 30 October 1999 and therefore applied at the material time, no longer requires the Commission to include an evaluation of the expenditure to be excluded in its communication to the Member States.

The first plea must therefore be rejected as unfounded.

The second plea

In its second plea, the Swedish Government claims that the charging of fees for the issue of maps is not an infringement of Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1765/92 or of Article 30a of Regulation No 805/68, since those fees cannot be regarded as administrative fees for the processing of aid applications.

Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 30a of Regulation No 805/68 provide that the amounts to be paid shall be paid ‘in their entirety’ and ‘in full’ to the beneficiaries.

It follows that those regulations do not authorise any deductions from the amounts to be paid to the farmers.

The Court has already held that Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 30a of Regulation No 805/68 prohibit national authorities from making a deduction from the payments made or from demanding the payment of administrative fees relating to applications and having the effect of reducing the amount of the aid (Joined Cases C-36/97 and C-37/97 Kellinghusen and Ketelsen [1998] ECR I-6337, paragraph 21).

The Swedish Government claims nevertheless that the fees charged for the issue of maps were not intended to cover the administrative costs borne by the authorities concerned. Unlike the case in Kellinghusen and Ketelsen, cited above, the processing of applications and the grant of aid were not dependent on the payment of those fees, since the latter were demanded separately.

Such an argument cannot be accepted.

As the Advocate General maintained with good reason in paragraph 17 of his Opinion, if the prohibition on deductions is not simply a standard clause, it cannot be interpreted in a purely formal manner as covering only deductions which are actually made on the occasion of payments. Thus the prohibition on any deduction must of necessity extend to all charges which are directly and inseparably linked to the amounts disbursed.

In a letter sent to the Commission on 2 February 1998, the Swedish Government conceded that it had considered various possibilities for financing the issue of maps and that it had opted for the levying of a fee on them.

Further, according to the national legislation, an aid application could not be submitted unless a map supplied by the national authorities was attached to the file.

In those circumstances, it must be stated that there was a direct relationship between the aid applications made by farmers and the charging of a fee for the maps, and that that had the effect of reducing the amount of the aid actually received by the beneficiaries.

The Swedish Government observes, in addition, that the Commission did not make any financial corrections so far as concerns 1998, because it accepted that the farmers had been able to benefit from the maps for purposes other than aid applications. It pleads that that circumstance should have given the Commission a reason, in assessing the financial correction for 1999, to take account of the arrival of new applicants and the fact that the maps had to be updated every year.

The Commission replies that the fees for the maps collected in both 1998 and 1999 were administrative fees incompatible with Community legislation. However it acknowledged that the fees collected in 1998 could, although to a relatively slight extent, be regarded as consideration for a service rendered to the farmers by making available a map which could be of use in running their farms. That argument did not apply to the map fees collected in 1999.

According to settled case-law, if the Commission did not carry out the correction due in respect of a previous year, but tolerated the irregularities on grounds of fairness, the Member State concerned does not acquire any right to demand that the same position be taken with regard to the irregularities with respect to the following financial year by virtue of the principle of legal certainty or the principle of protection of legitimate expectations (see Case C-55/91 Italy v Commission [1993] ECR I-4813, paragraph 67, and Case C-373/99 Greece v Commission [2001] ECR I-9619, paragraph 56).

In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the second plea must be rejected.

The alternative claims

The Swedish Government relies on two pleas in support of its first alternative claim, alleging respectively infringement of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/20 and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95, and wrongful application of Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 30a of Regulation No 805/68.

In its first plea, the Swedish Government maintains that the contested decision was adopted in infringement of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95, in so far as the written communication referred to in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 only concerns the financing of aid for arable crops.

According to the Swedish Government, no reference was made to the maps of fodder areas in that communication. However, pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95, the Commission should have indicated clearly the measures covered by its action in that document, which was received by the Swedish authorities on 24 October 2000.

As pointed out by the Advocate General in point 21 of his Opinion, first, it was only by a note of 18 May 2001 that the Swedish Government sent the Commission, at the latter’s request, detailed information on the fodder area aid paid. Following that note, on 1 August 2001 the Commission sent the Swedish Government a second formal communication in accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95. Secondly, the Swedish Government cannot use the fact that the Commission made no reference to the maps of arable areas in the communication of 24 October 2000 to maintain that it was unable to determine the corrective measures to take, since Sweden had abolished the map fees for both arable and fodder areas as from 1 July 2000.

It follows that the first plea must be rejected.

In its second plea, the Swedish Government claims that Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 30a of Regulation No 805/68 do not serve to justify the Commission’s decision to exclude from financing an amount corresponding to fees paid for the issue of maps relating to areas for which agro-environmental or regional aid was also sought.

In the view of the Swedish Government, the Commission allowed the map fees paid by the farmers who requested both types of aid but, in calculating the amount to be excluded from Community financing, it did not take into account the areas for which both arable or fodder area aid and agro-environmental or regional aid had been sought.

It should be remembered that, as the Court has held in paragraph 19 of this judgment, Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 30a of Regulation No 805/68 prohibit national authorities from making a deduction from the payments made or from demanding the payment of administrative fees relating to applications and having the effect of reducing the amount of the aid.

The fact that some farmers applied for both aid under Regulation No 1765/92 or Regulation No 805/68 and agro-environmental or regional aid for the same areas does not have any bearing on the prohibition on the Member States from making deductions from the amounts received by the beneficiaries as aid for arable crops or fodder areas.

The second recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1765/92 expressly shows that the compensatory payments are to compensate the loss of income caused by the reduction of the institutional prices in the context of the new support system for producers of certain arable crops. Moreover, according to the third recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2066/92, which inserted Article 30a into Regulation No 805/68, the purpose of the premium referred to is to grant substantial compensation to the producers affected by the consequences of the reduction in the intervention price for beef.

It is common ground that those objectives can be achieved only if the compensatory aid is paid in full to the farmers affected by the consequences of the price reductions (see Kellinghusen and Ketelsen, cited above, paragraph 19).

The Swedish Government’s interpretation of Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 30a of Regulation No 805/68 would render them redundant by giving the Member States the opportunity to avoid obligations which flow from those articles, and could therefore jeopardise the achievement of the aforementioned objectives.

The plea alleging wrongful application of Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 30a of Regulation No 805/68 must therefore be rejected.

In the further alternative, the Swedish Government claims that, if the Court decides that the fodder areas must be included in the calculation of the amount to be excluded from Community financing, it should exclude from that calculation the fees for maps relating to areas for which agro-environmental or regional aid was also sought.

In support of that claim, the Swedish Government repeats the arguments relied on in connection with the second plea of its first alternative claim. Those arguments cannot be accepted, on the grounds stated in paragraphs 39 to 41 of this judgment.

Since the Kingdom of Sweden has been unsuccessful in all of the pleas put forward, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.

Costs

Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Kingdom of Sweden has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:

1.Dismisses the action;

2.Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Signatures.

Language of the case: Swedish.