(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság)

(Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Support schemes – Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 – Article 143ba – Separate sugar payment – Grant – Decision of the new Member States – Conditions – Objective and non-discriminatory criteria)

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Direct support schemes – Common rules – Separate sugar payment

(Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Art. 143ba(1))

Article 143ba(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations No 2019/93, No 1452/2001, No 1453/2001, No 1454/2001, No 1868/94, No 1251/1999, No 1254/1999, No 1673/2000, No 2358/71 and No 2529/2001, as amended by Regulation No 319/2006, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions which exclude from entitlement to a separate sugar payment a farmer not having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through an integrátor which does have such rights, when on the other hand those provisions grant a separate payment to a farmer having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet direct to a sugar manufacturer, and to a farmer not having delivery rights who is a member of a producer group which does have delivery rights and who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through that group.

(see para. 46, operative part)

30 September 2010 (*)

(Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Support schemes – Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 – Article 143ba – Separate sugar payment – Grant – Decision of the new Member States – Conditions – Objective and non-discriminatory criteria)

In Case C‑133/09,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Fövárosi Bíróság (Hungary), made by decision of 23 February 2009, received at the Court on 8 April 2009, in the proceedings

Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of J.‑C. Bonichot, President of Chamber, C. Toader, K. Schiemann, L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur) and A. Prechal, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Mazák,

Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 8 July 2010,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–Mr Uzonyi, by Y. Uzonyi, ügyvéd,

–the Hungarian Government, by R. Somssich, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents,

–the European Commission, by B. Simon and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

1This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006 (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 32, ‘Regulation No 1782/2003’).

2The reference has been made in proceedings between Mr Uzonyi and the Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve (Central body of the Office for Agriculture and Rural Development, ‘the Hivatal’) concerning an application for a separate sugar payment.

Legal context

Community 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

Mr Uzonyi brought an appeal against the decision rejecting his application before the referring court. He claimed there was discrimination between sugar beet producers who delivered sugar beet themselves and those who delivered sugar beet through <i>integrátors</i>. He claimed application by analogy of Article 5(2) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Decree, which relates to deliveries of beet through producer groups.

16The defendant in the main proceedings submits before the referring court that the objective and non-discriminatory criteria are to be applied, not in relation to the persons eligible for payment who are covered by Article 143ba of Regulation No 1782/2003, but as regards the representative period to which that provision refers. It finds confirmation of its submission in the amendment made to Article 143ba of Regulation No 1782/2003 by Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2011/2006. It contends that that amendment simply clarified the wording of the provision without altering the meaning. Both before and after the amendment, objective and non-discriminatory criteria are therefore to be applied only in relation to the representative period.

17The referring court considers that Articles 2 and 5 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Decree exclude from the payment those farmers who have not concluded a direct contract with the sugar manufacturer but have concluded a cultivation contract with an <i>integrátor</i> having delivery rights based on the areas farmed by the producers belonging to it. Those farmers are not in a position to prove that they themselves have delivery rights, as required by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Decree, in order to obtain the payment.

18The referring court points out that, in contrast, farmers who are members of a producer group and who have not concluded a direct contract with the sugar manufacturer but have concluded a cultivation contract with a group which has delivery rights based on the areas farmed by its members may obtain a separate sugar payment under the provisions in force of Article 5(2) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Decree by producing the documents supplied by that group.

19In its view, account must be taken of the settled case-law of the Court of Justice according to which the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC, which prohibits all discrimination in the context of the common agricultural policy, is merely a specific expression of the general principle of equal treatment.

20The referring court considers that the wording of the provision of EU law to be interpreted is unclear and, furthermore, that that provision was subsequently amended. It adds that if the Court were to rule that under Article 143ba of Regulation No 1782/2003 producers of sugar beet delivering it through an <i>integrátor</i> are just as entitled to the separate sugar payment as producers who deliver the sugar beet themselves, such a payment could then also be granted, in respect of 2006, to the applicant in the main proceedings and to many others who have brought proceedings currently pending before the courts, by the application by analogy of Article 5(2) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Decree.

21In those circumstances, the Fövárosi Bíróság (Budapest Municipal Court) decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Does it follow from the provision contained in Article 143ba(1) of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 in the version in force until 31 December 2006, which stated that “[payment] shall be granted on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria”, that, as regards eligibility for the separate sugar payment under the single area payment scheme, it was not possible to draw a distinction between farmers on the basis of whether they delivered the sugar beet for processing directly (themselves) or indirectly (through an <i>integrátor</i>)?’

The question referred for a preliminary ruling

22By its question, read in the light of the grounds of the order for reference, the national court is effectively seeking to determine whether Article 143ba(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as precluding national provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which exclude from entitlement to a separate sugar payment a farmer not having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through an <i>integrátor</i> who does have such rights, while those provisions grant a separate payment to a farmer having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet directly to a sugar manufacturer, and to a farmer not having delivery rights who is a member of a producer group which does have delivery rights and who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through that group.

23In order to reply to that question it is necessary to establish whether such national provisions make for discrimination prohibited under Article 143ba of Regulation No 1782/2003.

24With regard to the contentions made by the defendant in the main proceedings, as a preliminary point, the Court finds that:

– Article 143ba of Regulation No 1782/2003, in all languages and in the version applicable in the main proceedings, clearly provides that the separate sugar payment is to be granted on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria to farmers eligible under the single area payment scheme;

– none of the language versions of that article establishes a connection between objective and non-discriminatory criteria, on the one hand, and determination of representative periods, on the other hand.

25The subsequent amendment of Article 143ba under Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2011/2006 does not affect those findings.

26Although it cannot be excluded that, by way of exception, an amending provision may be a factor for consideration when interpreting an amended provision, such a possibility is excluded a priori where the earlier provision is clear in all language versions.

27However, it is apparent that the amending provision relied on in the present case is not clear in all the available nineteen versions of it. In six of those versions, namely the Danish, Estonian, French, Hungarian, Polish and Portuguese versions, it contains differences in wording which give rise, at the very least, to uncertainty as to whether objective and non-discriminatory criteria must be applied when granting the payment or when determining the representative period.

28Furthermore, the thirteen other language versions, namely the versions in Spanish, Czech, German, Greek, English, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Dutch, Slovene, Slovak, Finnish and Swedish are worded as clearly as the provision to be interpreted.

29The Court must therefore hold that Article 143ba of Regulation No 1782/2003 requires the new Member States to apply objective and non-discriminatory criteria when granting a separate sugar payment.

30Consequently, that article merely restates the principle of non-discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC.

31In that regard, the Court has consistently held that the prohibition on discrimination in the context of the common agricultural policy is merely a specific expression of the general principle of equal treatment, which requires that comparable situations not be treated differently and different situations not be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified (see, in particular, with regard to the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC, Case C‑313/04 <i>Franz Egenberger </i>[2006] ECR I‑6331, paragraph 33; Case C‑33/08 <i>Agrana Zucker</i> [2009] ECR I‑5035, paragraph 46, and Case C‑365/08 <i>Agrana Zucker</i> [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 42).

32Regulation No 319/2006 inserted Article 143ba into Regulation No 1782/2003 in the version preceding the changes made by that regulation.

33It is clear from the second, sixth, seventh and ninth to eleventh recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 319/2006 that its objective is to provide income support for ‘farmers’ who produce sugar beet and are eligible under the single area payment scheme.

34That regulation does not establish any connection between the granting of a separate sugar payment and whether the farmers deliver the sugar beet to the sugar manufacturer directly or indirectly. Nor does it establish any connection between a separate sugar payment and whether or not a farmer has delivery rights.

35In the light of the objective of Regulation No 319/2006, farmers producing sugar beet are therefore in comparable situations whether they deliver that product to a sugar manufacturer directly or indirectly and whether or not they themselves have delivery rights under national provisions.

36According to the interpretation of the national law applying in the main proceedings as given by the referring court and confirmed by it in response to a request for clarification made by the Court because of the differences of interpretation of that law that had appeared in the written observations lodged before it, a farmer belonging to an <i>integrátor</i>, who does not have delivery rights and who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through an <i>integrátor</i> which does have delivery rights cannot be granted a separate sugar payment directly, unlike either a farmer having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet himself or a farmer not having delivery rights who delivers beet to a sugar manufacturer through a producer group to which he belongs which does have such rights.

37It follows that national provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings treat comparable situations differently.

38It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether such difference in treatment is objectively justified.

39In its written observations the Hungarian Government maintained that the <i>integrátor</i> is usually better placed to carry out the administrative work relating to the separate sugar payment. The procedure under the national provisions is usually more favourable to the producer. It ensures that applications are dealt with more effectively since the administration only has to rule on applications from <i>integrátors</i> and not on applications from all the producers belonging to <i>integrátors</i>.

40During the oral procedure the Hungarian Government stated that, in its view, in order to meet the requirements of Article 143ba of Regulation No 1782/2003, an <i>integrátor</i> must itself be eligible under the single area payment scheme.

41However, it should be noted that, according to the interpretation given by the referring court, the fact that a farmer belongs to a producer group having delivery rights does not preclude that farmer being granted a separate sugar payment directly, even though the farmer himself does not have delivery rights.

42It thus appears that farmers who are members of a producer group may submit an application for a separate sugar payment themselves without any objections being raised that it would be more efficient for the applications to be dealt with collectively. Such objections are likely to be as valid for that category of farmers as for the category of farmers belonging to an <i>integrátor</i> who do not have delivery rights.

43All the same, even if such objections might be raised against farmers who belong to an <i>integrátor</i> or are members of a group and do not themselves deliver to sugar manufacturers, they would not in any event constitute an objective justification for treatment that drew a distinction between those two types of farmer and farmers who deliver to the sugar manufacturer themselves.

44In particular, those objections could not be raised if the conditions laid down for granting a separate payment upon application by an intermediary ultimately had the effect of depriving the farmers concerned of entitlement to that payment, for example, in circumstances where:

– those farmers, if the intermediary failed to act, would not be allowed to make a direct application for a separate payment in its stead;

– submission of an application for a separate payment on behalf of the farmers by an intermediary was conditional upon the intermediary itself being eligible under the single area payment scheme, although Article 143ba of Regulation No 1782/2003 makes that requirement only in respect of a farmer claiming the separate payment and not in respect of an intermediary representing him.

45It must therefore be held that a difference in treatment such as the one at issue in the main proceedings is not objectively justified.

46Consequently, the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling is that Article 143ba(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as precluding national provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings which exclude from entitlement to a separate sugar payment a farmer not having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through an <i>integrátor</i> which does have such rights, although those provisions grant a separate payment to a farmer having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet direct to a sugar manufacturer, and to a farmer not having delivery rights who is a member of a producer group which does have delivery rights and who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through that group.

47In any event, it is for the national court to assess whether it is possible for it to give the national provisions an interpretation which is consistent with the relevant Community law.

Costs

48Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings which exclude from entitlement to a separate sugar payment a farmer not having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through an <i>integrátor</i> which does have such rights, although those provisions grant a separate payment to a farmer having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet direct to a sugar manufacturer, and to a farmer not having delivery rights who is a member of a producer group which does have delivery rights and who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through that group.

[Signatures]

* Language of the case: Hungarian.