8.12.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/13

(Case C-396/12)

2012/C 379/21

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren

Questions referred

1.How should the term ‘intentional non-compliance’ in Article 51(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) …, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 of 19 January 2009, in Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1698/2005 …, and in Article 67(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers …, be understood? In order to assume that intentional non-compliance has occurred, is it sufficient that there is non-compliance with long-established, settled policy as described in Article 8(2)(c) of the national Beleidsregels normenkader randvoorwaarden Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid (Netherlands Policy Rules governing the Cross-Compliance Standards Framework for the Common Agricultural Policy)?

2.Does European Union law preclude a ruling in a Member State that there is ‘intentional’ non-compliance with a scheme, within the terms of those regulations, on the ground that one or more of the following circumstances obtained:

(a) intent has already been assumed in the cross-compliance requirement in respect of which there has been non-compliance;

(b) the cross-compliance requirement concerned is complex;

(c) long-established, settled policy exists;

(d) there has been an active performance of an act, or a conscious omission of an act;

(e) the farmer was previously informed of compliance deficiencies in respect of the cross-compliance requirement concerned; and

(f) the extent of the non-compliance with the cross-compliance requirement points to intentional non-compliance?

3.Can ‘intent’ with regard to the ‘non-compliance’ be attributed to the beneficiary of the subsidy if a third party carries out the work on the instructions of that beneficiary?

Language of the case: Dutch

(1) OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2009 L 30, p. 100.

(3) OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74.

(4) OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18.