This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TJ0384
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (Extracts).
Italian Republic v European Commission.
EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Cattle and sheep sectors — Flat-rate financial correction — One-off correction — Articles 48 and 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Special entitlements — Obligation to state reasons.
Case T-384/14.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (Extracts).
Italian Republic v European Commission.
EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Cattle and sheep sectors — Flat-rate financial correction — One-off correction — Articles 48 and 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Special entitlements — Obligation to state reasons.
Case T-384/14.
Court reports – general
Case T‑384/14
(publication by extracts)
Italian Republic
v
European Commission
‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Cattle and sheep sectors — Flat-rate financial correction — One-off correction — Articles 48 and 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Special entitlements — Obligation to state reasons’
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 12 May 2016
Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Single payment scheme — Calculation of the reference amount — Account taken of amounts paid under the special payment scheme — No possibility of Member States using another method of calculating payment entitlements
(Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Arts 36(1), 47 to 50, 95 and 96)
When the single payment was introduced, Article 48 of Regulation No 1782/2003 established common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy. On a literal interpretation of that article and taking adjacent provisions into account, that provision applies to farmers who have benefited from payments giving right to payment entitlements subject to special conditions referred to in Article 47 of that regulation and who, during the reference period, had no hectares as referred to in Article 43 of that regulation for the purposes of determining single payment entitlements or the amount of whose entitlement per hectare is higher than EUR 5000. Such farmers, who either have no hectares or possess hectares with respect to which the entitlement per hectare is higher than EUR 5000, are entitled (a) to a payment equal to the basic reference amount corresponding to direct payments which they enjoyed over an average period of three years and (b) to payments for each EUR 5000 or fraction of the reference amount, that is to say, special payments, which they enjoyed over an average period of three years.
It follows that special payments are allocated at the reference amount per hectare up to EUR 5000 and, above that threshold, constitute an additional special payment entitlement. In that regard, Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 provides that the amounts it lists must be included in the reference amount under the conditions provided for in Article 48 of that regulation. It also follows from Article 47(2) of Regulation No 1782/2003 that, starting from 2007, and by way of derogation from Articles 33, 43 and 44 of that regulation, the amounts resulting from the dairy premium and additional payments provided for in Articles 95 and 96 of Regulation No 1782/2003 are to be included in the single payment scheme under the conditions provided for in Articles 48 to 50. Thus, the relevant legislation establishes the principle of combination of payments under different headings in a single payment.
Moreover, Article 48 of Regulation No 1782/2003 does not provide for any alternative method for determining entitlements to special payments, or for any obligation to maintain separate the payments derived from different entitlements. In that regard, since that provision is obligatory and leaves a Member State no margin of discretion, the latter cannot claim that its alternative method is equally effective, appropriate for preventing fraud, or even more favourable to farmers.
(see paras 89-91, 93)