Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/2571

(Case C-437/22, (1) Eesti Vabariik (Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Protection of the financial interests of the European Union - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 7 - Administrative measures and penalties - Regulation No 1306/2013 - Articles 54 and 56 - Delegated regulation No 640/2014 - Article 35 - Recovery of sums unduly paid to persons who have taken part in the irregularity - Concept of ‘beneficiary’)

(C/2024/2571)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Parties to the main criminal proceedings

Other party: Eesti Vabariik (Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet)

Operative part of the judgment

1.The first paragraph of Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, read, first, in conjunction with Article 54(1) of that regulation and the first sentence of Article 35(6) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance, and, secondly, in the light of Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests, must be interpreted as meaning that the recovery of aid financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and wrongly received as a result of fraud may be sought not only from the beneficiary of that aid, but also from persons who, although they cannot be regarded as beneficiaries of that aid, intentionally made false statements in order to obtain it.

2.Article 35(6) of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that where a legal person has obtained agricultural aid as a result of fraud attributable to its representatives, those representatives cannot, for that reason, be regarded as being ‘beneficiaries’ of that aid, within the meaning of that provision, read in conjunction with point 1 of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of that delegated regulation, if they are not covered by any of the three categories of person referred to by the latter provision, even if, in reality, they receive the profits generated by that legal person.

—

(1) OJ C 389, 10.10.2022.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2571/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—