Case C‑386/18

Coöperatieve Producentenorganisatie en Beheersgroep Texel UA

v

Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 19 December 2019

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common fisheries policy — Regulations (EU) Nos 1303/2013, 1379/2013 and 508/2014 — Fishery and aquaculture producer organisations — Production and marketing plans — Financial support for the preparation and implementation of those plans — Conditions of eligibility of costs — Discretion of the Member States — No possibility under national law to apply for financial support)

1. Fisheries — Common fisheries policy — Fishery and aquaculture producer organisations — Production and marketing plan — Financial support for the preparation and implementation of that plan — Conditions of eligibility of costs — Discretion of the Member States — Limits — No possibility under national law to apply for financial support — Not permissible

   (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1303/2013, Arts 4(4) and 65(1) and No 508/2014, Art. 66(1), (2) and (3))

   (see paragraphs 53-55, 58, 59, operative part 1)

2. Fisheries — Common fisheries policy — Fishery and aquaculture producer organisations — Production and marketing plan — Financial support for the preparation and implementation of that plan — Unconditional right to support — No such right

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 508/2014, Art. 66(1), (2) and (3))

   (see paragraphs 61-65, 67, operative part 2)

3. Fisheries — Common fisheries policy — Fishery and aquaculture producer organisations — Production and marketing plan — Financial support for the preparation and implementation of that plan — Conditions of eligibility of costs — Issuance of a grant for an application submitted after the preparation and implementation of such a plan — Whether permissible

   (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1303/2013, Arts 2 and 65(6), No 1379/2013, Art. 28 and No 508/2014, Art. 66(1) and (2))

   (see paragraphs 70-73, operative part 3)

Résumé

A Member State may not refuse to act on a subsidy application from a producer organisation for fishery products on the ground that, at the date of submission of the application, it had not yet provided for the possibility of processing it

In the judgment in Coöperatieve Producentenorganisatie en Beheersgroep Texel (C‑386/18) of 19 December 2019, the Court clarified the obligations of Member States when handling a grant under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) from a producer organisation for fishery products (‘producer organisation’), submitted before the Member State has provided for the possibility for such an application to be processed and after the preparation and implementation of its production and marketing plan.

In the case at hand, PO Texel, a producer organisation, addressed, on 19 May 2015, a grant application to the Netherlands authorities in order to be eligible for the financial support provided for by the EMFF for the expenditure incurred for the preparation and implementation of its 2014 production and marketing plan. Even though the Commission had approved, on 25 February 2015, the operational programme for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020 submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, it was not until 25 August 2016 that the latter made provision for the possibility of submitting a grant application. PO Texel’s application was therefore dismissed on the grounds that, at the time of the grant application’s submission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands had not yet provided for the possibility for such an application to be submitted and that, moreover, it was only after it had implemented its plan that PO Texel submitted the application. Hearing the case, Administrative Court of Appeal for Trade and Industry (Netherlands) requested a ruling from the Court of Justice on the obligations of Member States when handling such a grant application.

First, the Court highlighted the need to provide producer organisations with the financial support necessary to allow them to play a more meaningful role in the achievement of the objectives pursued by the most recent reform in the area of the common fisheries policy, which took effect on 1 January 2014. ( 1 ) The Court then held that in setting out, in mandatory terms, in Article 66(1) of Regulation No 508/2014 ( 2 ) (‘the EMFF Regulation’) that the EMFF is to ‘support’ the preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans, the EU legislature intended to impose an obligation on Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure that producer organisations can benefit from EMFF funding both for the preparation and for the implementation of production and marketing plans. In order to fulfil that obligation, Member States are required to provide in their internal legal orders that producer organisations may submit their applications for EMFF grants and to adopt implementing measures for the EMFF Regulation as regards the eligibility of expenditure and, in particular, determine the criteria relating to the starting date of eligibility of such expenditure and the method for calculating the amount to be granted to each of those organisations.

In that regard, in view of the fact that it was only on 25 August 2016 that the Kingdom of the Netherlands provided in its domestic legal order for such a possibility, the Court considered that the inertia shown by the Netherlands authorities could not fall within the margin of discretion enjoyed by the Member States in the implementation of their respective operational programmes. Accordingly, the Court held that Article 66(1) of the EMFF Regulation must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to act on a subsidy application from a producer organisation in respect of the expenditure it has incurred preparing and implementing a production and marketing plan, on the ground that, at the date on which it submitted that application, that State had not yet provided, in its internal legal order, for the possibility for such an application to be processed.

Second, as regards the question of whether Article 66(1) of the EMFF Regulation directly creates for producer organisations a right to financial support, the Court recalled that a provision of an EU regulation is capable of giving rise to rights of which parties may avail themselves in a court of law only if it is clear, precise and unconditional. In view of the conditional nature of Article 66 of the EMFF Regulation, however, that provision must be interpreted as not directly creating a right to financial support under the EMFF.

Third, as regards the interpretation of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 1303/2013 ( 3 ) (‘the CSC Regulation’), providing for the impossibility of receiving financial support where an operation has been fully implemented before the funding application has been submitted to the managing authority, the Court pointed out that preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans must not be considered as a series of isolated actions implemented separately, but as a single continuous action with continuous operational costs. Therefore, the preparation and implementation of such a plan cannot be regarded as being ‘fully implemented’ before the end of the programming period, occurring on 31 December 2020. Accordingly, the Court held that Article 65(6) of the CSC Regulation must be interpreted as not precluding the issuance of a grant under the EMFF for the preparation and implementation of a production and marketing plan where the grant application has been submitted after the preparation and implementation of such a plan.

( 1 ) The EU legislature highlighted that need in recital 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 1).

( 2 ) Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 149, p. 1).

( 3 ) Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).