Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015

Legal context

The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

13 Agrooikosystimata is incorporated as a limited liability company, the objects of which are, inter alia, designing and implementing schemes and projects to protect, restore and promote the natural and agricultural environment, developing initiatives and actions to promote environmental protection, carrying out environmental impact studies and studying the implementation of rural development programmes.

14 During 1997, Agrooikosystimata leased land with a surface area of 237.4 hectares in the Prefecture of Magnesia with a view to establishing, in particular, biotopes and ecological parks there.

15 On 26 January 1998, a land use contract was executed between the head of the Agricultural Development Directorate of that Prefecture, in his capacity as representative of the Ministry of Agricultural Development and Food and Agrooikosystimata within the framework of the LTSAS laid down in Regulation No 2078/92.

16 With effect from 1998, the land concerned was entered in the scheme for 20 years. Agrooikosystimata gave various undertakings connected with the supervised realisation of the objectives of that scheme and, in return, received basic financial aid per hectare and additional aid for five years for the creation of a nature reserve.

17 In June 2005, the Central Monitoring Committee for the LTSAS on Greek territory took the view that, despite the land’s eligibility for that scheme, Agrooikosystimata did not fulfil the criteria to receive the aid.

18 According to that committee, the LTSAS was open only to persons who, at the time of the inclusion of their agricultural land in the scheme, earned an income from agricultural activities on the eligible land, which they would lose as a result of the planned reduction in production or higher production costs.

19 Accordingly, natural or legal persons who, at the time of inclusion of their agricultural land in the LTSAS, have suffered no loss of income due to the reconversion of their holding or, in particular, legal persons which were formed to pursue the commercial object of gaining access to the financial aid provided for under the scheme by means of the agricultural land which they have leased or propose to lease for that purpose may not participate in the scheme.

20 Taking the view that Agrooikosystimata has been formed as a commercial company, that it has not suffered any loss of income following the inclusion of the land in question in the LTSAS and that the leasing of that land and its inclusion in the scheme were, moreover, for commercial and lucrative purposes, contrary to the provisions of Regulation No 2078/92, the Central Monitoring Committee for the LTSAS decided that that land had been wrongly included in that scheme and should be excluded from it.

21 Consequently, by a decision of the Director for Agricultural Development of the Prefectural Administration of Magnesia of 14 November 2007, the land use contract concluded between the Minister for Agricultural Development and Food and Agrooikosystimata was terminated and the land concerned was excluded from the LTSAS.

22 Agrooikosystimata lodged an appeal against that decision. Before the Dioikitiko Efeteio Larisas (Administrative Court of Appeal of Larisa), it argues, in particular, that it is apparent from both Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2078/92 and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 746/96, as well as Commission Decision 89/651/EEC of 26 October 1989 relating to the definitions of the characteristics and to the list of agricultural products for the surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings during the period 1988 to 1997 (OJ 1989 L 391, p. 1) and Commission Decision 2000/115 that the beneficiaries of the LTSAS are the landholders, natural or legal persons, whether owners or farmers, irrespective of whether they carry out agricultural activities in holdings already actively used and producing agricultural revenue. According to Agrooikosystimata, it is because of the removal of the possibility of using the land concerned in accordance with its intended use that the financial compensation provided for in Regulation No 2078/92 is paid to the landholder.

23 The Dioikitiko Efeteio Larisas takes the view that it is apparent from Regulations Nos 2078/92 and 746/96 that only persons for whom agriculture is their main professional activity and the income which they draw from eligible land holdings reduces as a result of the commitments and restrictions undertaken can participate in the LTSAS. Considering that Agrooikosystimata did not carry out any agricultural activity and suffered no loss of agricultural revenue as a result of the withdrawal of the land concerned, that court held that the company did not meet the conditions enabling it to benefit under the scheme in respect of that land.

24 Consequently, the Dioikitiko Efeteio Larisas dismissed the action brought by Agrooikosystimata.

25 The appellant in the main proceedings, who submits that that court took as its basis an incorrect interpretation of Regulations Nos 2078/92 and 746/96, lodged an appeal before the referring court.

26 Taking the view that the resolution of the dispute before it depends on the interpretation of those regulations, the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must those who are to qualify as beneficiaries of the [LTSAS] under [Regulations Nos 2078/92 and 746/96] be farmers or is it sufficient if they assume the financial risk of the land entered in the scheme and are responsible for its management?’

Consideration of the question referred

27 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the beneficiaries of the LTSAS under Regulations Nos 2078/92 and 746/96 must be farmers or whether it is sufficient if they assume the financial risk of the eligible land and are responsible for its management.

28 Before the referring court, Agrooikosystimata disputes the interpretation of Regulations Nos 2078/92 and 746/96 adopted by the Dioikitiko Efeteio Larisas, namely that only persons for whom agriculture is their main professional activity and the income which they draw from the eligible land holdings reduces as a result of the commitments and restrictions undertaken can participate in the scheme.

29 In Agrooikosystimata’s submission, it is apparent from Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2078/92 which, in its Greek language version, identifies the beneficiaries of the aid scheme instituted under the regulation as being ‘κατόχους γεωργικών εκμεταλλεύσεων’ (agricultural landholders), that the status of farmer is not required in order to participate in the LTSAS.

30 In that regard, Agrooikosystimata argues that that regulation establishes a distinction between the notion of ‘εωργοί’ (farmers) and that of ‘κατόχους γεωργικών εκμεταλλεύσεων’ (agricultural landholders). The latter notion, wider than the former, should correspond to the definition in point B/01 of Annex I to Decision 2000/115, namely ‘[the] natural person, group of natural persons or the legal person on whose account and in whose name the holding is operated and who is legally and economically responsible for the holding, i.e. who takes the economic risks of the holding’.

31 It is appropriate to note that there are discrepancies between the different language versions of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2078/92.

32 While the Greek, French, Italian and Dutch language versions of that provision refer to the notion of ‘agricultural landholder’ in order to identify the beneficiaries of the aid scheme provided for by that regulation, the Spanish, German and English language versions of that provision refer to the notion of ‘farmer’.

33 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, the provisions of EU law must be interpreted and applied in a uniform manner, in the light of the versions established in all the EU languages and that, where there is a divergence between the various language versions of a text of EU law, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see judgment in GSV, C‑74/13, EU:C:2014:243 , paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

34 In this case, although the Greek, French, Italian and Dutch versions use, in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2078/92, the term ‘agricultural landholder’ rather than the term ‘farmer’ to designate the beneficiaries of the aid scheme in question, as follows from the general scheme of that regulation, those two notions are equivalent in meaning.

35 That is clear from both the preamble to Regulation No 2078/92 which, in each of the language versions referred to in paragraph 32 of this judgment, uses the term ‘farmer’ instead of the term ‘landholder’, including when identifying, in its fourth and twelfth recitals in particular, ‘farmers’ as being the beneficiaries of the aid scheme which it institutes, and Article 1 of that regulation, under which the aid scheme is intended to contribute to providing an appropriate income ‘for farmers’.

36 That interpretation is corroborated by Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 2078/92 concerning abandoned land, from which it is clear that the aid referred to in Article 2(1)(e) of that regulation for the upkeep of abandoned farming or forest land could be granted to persons other than farmers only where no farmers were available.

37 The interpretation which follows from the foregoing considerations, that only persons having the status of farmer could seek to participate in the LTSAS, is also in accordance with the objectives pursued by Regulation No 2078/92.

38 As follows from the second, tenth and twelfth recitals in the preamble to the regulation, it had instituted a Community aid scheme the main objective of which was to regulate the production of agricultural products (see, to that effect, judgment in Huber C‑336/00, EU:C:2002:509 , paragraph 35).

39 Such was, in particular, the objective of the LTSAS by virtue of which financial compensation was paid to farmers who undertook to set aside from their agricultural activity part of their agricultural holding for environmental purposes and the protection of natural resources.

40 In that regard, it must be stated that the notion of ‘agricultural activity’, as defined in Article 2(c) 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 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1), which includes maintaining the land in good agricultural and environmental condition, cannot be used to interpret Regulation No 2078/92, given that that notion has been defined in the context of the decoupling of aid from agricultural production, that is to say in a context totally different from that in which the facts at issue in the main proceedings arise. In that context, agricultural aid was still granted in essence on the basis of production volume.

41 It follows from the foregoing considerations that only persons who have previously produced agricultural products could participate in the LTSAS.

42 That interpretation is corroborated by Annex I to Decision 2000/115, under which ‘[a]ll partners on a group holding who take part in the farm work on the holding are considered as being as holders’, the agricultural land holding being defined as ‘[a] single unit both technically and economically, which has single management and which produces agricultural products’.

43 Furthermore, although the Court has held that environmental objectives form part of the objectives pursued by Regulation No 2078/92, it has also stated that the promotion of more environmentally-friendly forms of production — which is certainly a genuine objective — remains an ancillary one (see, to that effect, judgment in Huber EU:C:2002:509 , paragraphs 32 and 36).

44 In those circumstances, it cannot be claimed, as Agrooikosystimata seeks to do, that the achievement of the agri-environmental objectives of Regulation No 2078/92 is alone sufficient to justify the aid provided for by that regulation be granted to persons other than farmers.

45 Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Regulation No 2078/92 must be interpreted as meaning that only persons who have previously produced agricultural products could benefit under the LTSAS provided for in Article 2(1)(f) thereof.

Costs

46 Since 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.