20.11.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 317/9 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fövárosi Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — József Uzonyi v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
(Case C-133/09) (1)
(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)
2010/C 317/16
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Fövárosi Bíróság
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: József Uzonyi
Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — 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) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 — Obligation on Member States to grant a separate sugar payment on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria — National legislation reserving that payment to producers holding a supply contract for sugar beet concluded directly with a sugar refinery
Operative part of the judgment
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 integrátor 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.