(State aid – Partial exemption from mineral levies for crops grown under glass or on substrate)

Summary of the Judgment

(Art. 87(1) EC)

(Art. 87(1) EC)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope

(Art. 253 EC)

1.Since the concept of State aid does not cover measures which differentiate between undertakings in relation to charges where that differentiation is the result of the nature and general scheme of the system of levies in question, it is for the Member State which has introduced such a differentiation to show that that is actually the case.

(see paras 42-43)

2.The fact that a State measure providing for the payment of levies by a category of undertakings is not intended to generate tax revenue does not suffice to exclude outright its attendant exemption in favour of certain undertakings from classification as aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC. Article 87(1) EC does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or their aims but defines them in relation to their effects.

(see para. 51)

3.The obligation to state reasons constitutes an essential procedural requirement which must be distinguished from the question of the merits of those reasons, which concern the substantive legality of the contested measure. The statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be adapted to the nature of the measure in question and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in such a way as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

(see para. 65)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 29 April 2004 (1)

(State aid – Partial exemption from mineral levies for crops grown under glass or on substrate)

In Case C-159/01,

Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by J. van Bakel, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Triantafyllou and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2001/371/EC of 21 December 2000 on the exemption from mineral levies under the manure law which the Netherlands intends to grant (OJ 2001 L 130, p. 42),

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator,

after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 29 January 2003, at which the Kingdom of the Netherlands was represented by C. Wissels, acting as Agent, and the Commission was represented by M. van Vliet,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 June 2003,

gives the following

1.1 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’).

2.2 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.

(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.

3. A description of any likely significant effects, to the extent of the information available on such effects, of the project on the environment resulting from:

(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.

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)]

…

(29) 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

First, hobby undertakings are exempted from the mineral levies. Secondly, horticultural undertakings growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate enjoy a partial exemption from those levies. Thirdly, an exemption is laid down for garden centres.

18The Netherlands authorities maintained that the exemptions from the levies in question were justified ‘by the nature or general scheme of the system’ within the meaning of the Notice on State aid in the area of direct taxation, and that they did not therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

19With regard to horticultural undertakings and garden centres performing horticultural activities, the Netherlands authorities maintained that the exempted input norms of 460 kg of phosphates and 800 kg of nitrogen for the undertakings concerned were calculated on the basis of research data from the Research Station for Floriculture and Vegetables under glass on the uptake of phosphates and nitrogen by crops grown in glasshouses. Those data showed that the uptake of crops grown in glasshouses amounts on average to 460 kg phosphates and 800 kg nitrogen per hectare per year. The uptake was thus considerably higher than for outdoor crops. This was explained by the fact that production for crops cultivated under glass was eight times as high as for outdoor crops. This is the reason that those norms are higher than the norms for agricultural undertakings and higher than the norms contained in the Nitrates Directive.

20By letter of 20 March 2000, the Commission notified the Kingdom of the Netherlands of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of the proposed exemptions.

21As regards the exemption for horticulture, the Commission found that it was within ‘the nature or general scheme of the system’ to equate the land or growing medium inside the farm building with farm land and then apply the same input norms. A normal application of the input/output regime would thus assure equal treatment and would not constitute State aid. The Commission found that the amounts which could be introduced were much higher (460 kg phosphates and 800 kg nitrogen per hectare). There did not therefore seem to be an inherent reason for granting the proposed exemption to horticulture.

22As regards the exemption for garden centres performing horticultural activities, the Commission maintained that, to the extent the same system applied to soil-bound and non-soil-bound horticulture, again there did not seem to be an inherent reason for granting the proposed exemption.

23Finally, the Commission stated that it had doubts about the compatibility of the Meststoffenwet and the exemption provisions with the Nitrates Directive.

24The Commission stated inter alia that the amount of nitrogen permitted for garden centres and horticulture was much higher than the amounts permitted by the Nitrates Directive (170 kg of nitrogen per hectare; derogation permitted on an exceptional basis for four years up to 210 kg). It maintained that in the absence of data on the loss of nitrates in the water and taking into account the fact that the permitted amount of nitrogen was far higher than that laid down in that directive, it had doubts about the environmental effects of the proposed exemptions.

25Therefore, the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC. It invited interested parties to submit their comments on the proposed aid measure.

26By letter sent to the Commission on 17 May 2000, the Kingdom of the Netherlands submitted its comments in reaction to the initiation of the procedure. According to the Netherlands, in view of the content and aims of the measure, it could not be qualified as a tax measure, from which an exemption would constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC. The Netherlands authorities also stated that the objections of the Commission on the basis of the Nitrates Directive should not be dealt with via a State aid procedure.

The contested decision

27In point 34 of the grounds of the contested decision, the Commission states that, in the absence of any further information, there is still doubt as regards the exemptions proposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

28The Commission states in point 36 of the grounds of that decision that, in the case at hand, support is granted by a Member State in favour of certain undertakings as they are relieved from certain levies.

29In point 38 of the grounds of that decision, the Commission maintains that the Netherlands authorities have not brought forward any additional information with regard to garden centres and horticultural undertakings.

30Therefore, in point 39 of the grounds of the contested decision, the Commission maintains the objections it raised against the proposed partial exemption for horticultural undertakings and garden centres performing horticultural activities. As regards the exemption for horticulture, it states that it is within ‘the nature or general scheme of the system’ to equate the land or growing medium inside the farm building with farm land and then apply the same input norms. In the case at hand, the authorised amounts are however much higher (460 kg phosphates and 800 kg nitrogen per hectare). Levies must only be paid once those higher quantities are exceeded. Therefore, there is no inherent reason for granting the proposed exemption to horticulture and the Netherlands authorities have not provided such justification.

31The Commission is of the opinion in point 40 of the grounds of the contested decision that the exemptions meet all the conditions mentioned in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the Notice on State aid in the area of direct taxation, which applies by analogy. The measure in question confers on recipients an advantage which relieves them of charges that are normally borne by them; that advantage is granted by the State (loss of revenue); that measure may adversely affect competition and trade between Member States, which is the case if the beneficiary carries on economic activity involving trade between Member States, and, lastly, the measure in question is specific or selective.

32In point 41 of the grounds of the decision, the Commission states that that kind of aid must be considered as operating aid. That aid, which simply relieves economic operators of their normal operating costs, confers only a short-term economic advantage for the recipient which ceases as soon as the payment of aid stops and is particularly liable to distort competition.

33In point 42 of the grounds of the contested decision, referring to item 5.5.1 of the Guidelines, the Commission observes that operating aid is not normally allowed. Such aids can only be allowed if they are temporary and degressive, which is not the case here.

34In point 43 of the grounds of the decision, the Commission finds that the examination under Articles 87 EC to 89 EC encompasses an investigation of compatibility with other Community legislation. According to the Commission, the outcome of a State aid procedure may never produce a result which is contrary to the specific provisions of the EC Treaty, in this case Article 174 EC, or to Community legislation adopted on the basis of those provisions. In any event, the Commission took the view that, irrespective of the compliance of the Netherlands legislation with the Nitrates Directive, the tax relief in question must be considered as a pure operating aid.

35In view of those considerations, the Commission draws the conclusion in point 44 of the grounds of the contested decision that the proposed tax exemptions for hobby undertakings, for horticultural undertakings and for garden centres performing horticultural activities cannot be considered to be in the common interest, and therefore do not qualify for exemption under Article 87(3)(c) EC.

Articles 1 to 3 of the contested decision are worded as follows:

Article 1

The tax exemptions under the Minas system which the Netherlands intends to grant to small undertakings (hobby undertakings), horticultural undertakings and garden centres performing horticultural activities is incompatible with the common market. The aid scheme must therefore not be implemented.

Article 2

The Netherlands shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The action before the Court

37The Kingdom of the Netherlands asks the Court to annul the contested decision, to the extent that it relates to the exemptions for horticultural undertakings and garden centres growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate.

38In support of its action, it claims that the Commission infringed Article 87 EC and Article 253 EC by declaring that that exemption constituted State aid incompatible with the common market. The Kingdom of the Netherlands claims in particular that the exemption for growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate does not constitute a prohibited State aid since it is justified by the nature and general scheme of the MINAS system.

39The Commission asks the Court to dismiss the action and to order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

The first plea: infringement of Article 87(1) EC

The first limb: the existence of relief from charges for undertakings growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate

40The Netherlands Government claims that the partial exemption from mineral levies does not confer any advantage on undertakings growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate but is intended to take into account the nature of the MINAS system. It states that, in accordance with the nature of the system, the undertakings do not have to pay levies for the quantities of nitrogen and phosphates which are taken up by cultivated crops, since those quantities are removed from the undertaking when the crops are removed from it. According to the Netherlands Government, the uptake of nitrogen and phosphates by crops grown in glasshouses or on substrate is eight times higher than that by crops grown in the open. It claims that that stems from, first, the fact that growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate is much more intensive than farming in the open, and secondly, the fact that growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate is not dependent on the seasons. Accordingly, it is justified to allow horticultural undertakings growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate to release into the soil, without having to pay levies, annual quantities of 460 kg of phosphates and 800 kg of nitrogen per hectare, quantities much higher than those authorised for farming in the open. The Netherlands Government claims that it put forward those arguments throughout the administrative proceedings. However, the Commission never clearly expressed its specific grounds for complaint in relation to the exemption for growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate.

41The Commission disputes that assertion. It claims that it asked the Kingdom of the Netherlands from the outset to justify the fact that the norms were much more flexible for horticultural undertakings than for traditional farmers. It reiterated its doubts about that justification in its decision to initiate the procedure. In the latter decision, it also asked the Kingdom of the Netherlands to communicate to it all information which could be relevant to the evaluation of that exemption. However, the Kingdom of the Netherlands did not show that the exemption granted to the horticulturists was actually justified by the higher levels of absorption of nitrogen and phosphates by the crops produced in horticultural undertakings. According to the Commission, the annual quantities of 460 kg of phosphates and 800 kg of nitrogen are based on an agreement between the Netherlands authorities and the farmers, the result of which is not necessarily norms established on a purely scientific basis.

42It must be stated in that regard that the concept of aid has indeed been interpreted by the Court as not covering measures which differentiate between undertakings in relation to charges where that differentiation is the result of the nature and general scheme of the system of levies in question (see, to that effect, Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, paragraph 33, Joined Cases C-72/91 and C-73/91 Sloman Neptun [1993] ECR I-887, paragraph 21, Case C-390/98 Banks [2001] ECR I-6117, paragraph 33, and Case C-351/98 Spain v Commission [2002] ECR I-8031, paragraph 43).

43It is for the Member State which has introduced such a differentiation between undertakings in relation to charges to show that it is actually justified by the nature and general scheme of the system in question.

44It should be noted in this case, as the Advocate General stated in points 68 and 69 of his Opinion, that while it seems plausible that, over a comparable area of cultivation, crops grown in glasshouses or on substrate allow a greater uptake of phosphates and nitrogen by plants in the course of a year than crops grown in the open, it does not follow from the arguments raised by the Netherlands Government that the uptake is eight times higher than that for crops grown in the open and that it corresponds to average annual quantities of 460 kg of phosphates and 800 kg of nitrogen.

45According to the documents in the case-file the Commission indicated to the Netherlands Government throughout the administrative proceedings that it was not convinced by the justification for the contested exemption, referred to in the preceding paragraph, based on the much higher uptake of nitrogen and phosphates by plants grown in glasshouses or on substrate.

Accordingly, in order to show that the contested exemption was justified by the nature and general scheme of the system in question, the Netherlands authorities should have adduced scientific proof in that regard. They did not however adduce any proof to that effect.

47It must therefore be stated that the Commission was entitled to conclude in points 39 and 40 of the grounds of the contested decision that the exemption at issue was not justified by the nature and general scheme of the MINAS system but conferred on the recipient an advantage which relieved it of charges that it normally had to bear.

50First of all, the Court has already stated in paragraph 47 of this judgment that the Commission was entitled to conclude that the exemption for growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate constituted relief from charges for farmers growing crops in that manner.

51Next it must be pointed out that the argument of the Netherlands Government that the MINAS system is not intended to generate tax revenue does not suffice to exclude the exemption at issue outright from classification as aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC. Article 87(1) EC does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or their aims but defines them in relation to their effects (Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723, paragraph 79, Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR I-4551, paragraph 20 and Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I-3671, paragraph 25).

52In this case, the Netherlands Government does not dispute that the exemption at issue leads to a loss of resources which ought to be paid into the State budget. It merely contends that that exemption does not allow the recipient to pollute the soil to a greater extent than a traditional farmer who is fully liable to the mineral levy.

53However, under the first limb of this first plea, the Court has rejected the argument that the exemption for growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate does not lead to greater soil pollution than by traditional farming because the uptake of phosphates and nitrogen by crops grown in glasshouses or on substrate is greater than that of crops grown in the open.

54It follows that the second limb of the first plea must be dismissed.

55The Netherlands Government claims that trade would be affected and competition distorted only if undertakings growing crops in such a way in the Netherlands were granted the right to release more manure into the soil than other farmers. That is not the case here since the exemption at issue covers the quantity of minerals in the manure introduced which then leaves the undertaking by removal of the crops and does not therefore pollute the soil.

56First it should be stated, as the Advocate General points out at point 88 of his Opinion, that the argument of the Netherlands Government is based on the premiss that the contested exemption is justified by the nature and the general scheme of the MINAS system in that it corresponds to the quantities of minerals taken up by the plants grown which are removed from the undertaking without polluting the soil. However, the Court has already dismissed that argument in its assessment of the first limb of this plea.

57The Netherlands Government does not seek to challenge on other grounds the validity of the Commission’s finding, set out at points 40 and 41 of the grounds of the contested decision, that the exemption at issue could have an adverse effect on trade in horticultural products, in which there is considerable international trade, and that the exemption at issue, which reduces the normal operating costs of the recipient, may distort competition.

58The third limb of this plea must therefore be dismissed.

59The Netherlands Government claims that the Commission based the contested decision on an infringement of the Nitrates Directive. However, the Commission cannot base a decision on State aid on an infringement of that directive.

60It should be stated in that regard that the Commission relied on the existence of a State aid incompatible with the common market under Article 87(1) EC. In its assessment, the Commission found, in points 41 and 42 of the grounds of the contested decision, that the exemption at issue must be regarded as operating aid intended to reduce the normal costs of the operators in question, which does not fulfil the conditions necessary to qualify for a derogation under Article 87(3) EC or under the Guidelines.

61Although subsequently, in point 43 of the grounds of the contested decision, the Commission cites case-law holding that the outcome of a State aid procedure may never produce a result which is contrary to the specific provisions of the Treaty (Case C-225/91 Matra v Commission [1993] ECR I-3203, paragraph 41), it concludes that, irrespective of the compliance of the national legislation with the Nitrates Directive, the tax relief must be regarded as pure operating aid.

62Accordingly, the Commission did not base the contested decision on an infringement of the Nitrates Directive.

63Therefore the second plea must be dismissed as unfounded.

64The Netherlands Government complains that the Commission did not give reasons why it considers that the annual exemptions of 460 kg of phosphates and 800 kg of nitrogen per hectare for growing crops in glasshouses or on substrate are too high.

65It must be observed in that regard that the obligation to state reasons constitutes an essential procedural requirement which must be distinguished from the question of the merits of those reasons, which concern the substantive legality of the contested measure. The Court has consistently held that the statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be adapted to the nature of the measure in question and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in such a way as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction (see, inter alia, Joined Cases 296/82 and 318/82 Netherlands and Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek v Commission [1985] ECR 809, paragraph 19, Case C-350/88 Delacre and Others v Commission [1990] ECR I-395, paragraph 15, Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723, paragraph 86 and Case C-367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France [1998] ECR I-1719, paragraph 63).

66In this case, the Commission states, inter alia in points 34, 38 and 39 of the grounds of the contested decision, that in the absence of any further information or additional arguments from the Netherlands authorities it is within ‘the nature or general scheme of the system’ to equate the land or growing medium inside the farm building with farm land and then apply the same input norms.

67That statement of reasons is adapted to the nature of the measure in question and discloses in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning of the Commission in such a way as to make the Kingdom of the Netherlands aware of the reasons for the measure and the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

68In those circumstances, the third plea must also be dismissed.

69Since none of the pleas put forward by the Netherlands Government is well founded, this action must be dismissed.

70Under 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 the Netherlands has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) hereby:

Dismisses the application;

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 April 2004.

Registrar

President

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

Language of the case: Dutch.