1.

Is the application of Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy justified where an undertaking owned by the proprietor of the company applying for aid, which is distinct from the latter, has committed an irregularity the financial consequences of which have not been rectified and the company applying for aid has taken over that undertaking’s agricultural business?

2.

Is it possible to apply Article 60 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 in such a way that a person is found to have circumvented the administrative penalty provided for in Article 64(4)(d) of that regulation, despite the fact that, in respect of the applicant company or its proprietor, no decision has been adopted imposing on it an administrative penalty resulting in its exclusion from eligibility for the aid?

3.

Is it possible to apply Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 in such a way that the authority responsible for examination of the project proposal must verify whether other undertakings previously owned by the proprietor of the company applying for aid satisfy the provisions of Article 2(14) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and, if the conditions are not fulfilled, reject the project proposal without an additional individual assessment of the factual circumstances?