Brussels, 05/12/2013 (Agence Europe) - In a judgment published on Wednesday 4 December, the Court of justice of the EU dismissed the Commission action contesting the Council decisions on the grant of state aid by Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land between 2010 and 2013. By adopting the contested decisions, the Council had taken into consideration the substantial change in circumstances linked to the effects in 2008 and 2009 of the economic and financial crisis on those states' agricultural sectors
At the request of a member state, the Council of the EU, deciding by unanimity, can decide if state aid can be considered compatible with the internal market, if exceptional circumstances justify such a decision. In the Community agricultural guidelines, the Commission proposed that member states amend their existing aid schemes for the purchase of agricultural land to conform to those guidelines by 31 December 2009 at the latest. In 2007, Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Hungary accepted those appropriate measures. In 2009, those four member states requested the Council of the European Union to declare compatible with the internal market, until 31 December 2013, aid schemes for the purchase of agricultural land. The Council granted those requests.
In its action, the Commission requested the Court of Justice annul the Council decisions.
The Court indicates that nothing in the dossier suggests an exclusive or main purpose other than that of assisting Lithuanian, Polish, Latvian and Hungarian farmers to purchase agricultural land more easily. Furthermore, the Court rejects as unfounded the Commission's argument that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment by considering that there were exceptional circumstances, which justified the authorised measures. It concludes that, in the light of its unusual and unforeseeable character and the extent of the effects of the economic and financial crisis on the agriculture sector in the member states concerned, the Council cannot be regarded as having made such an error. Finally, the Court rules, “it cannot be held that the Council opted for a measure which was manifestly disproportionate when authorising the aid schemes concerned for the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2013”. (LC/transl.fl)