JUDGMENT OF 6. 5. 1980 — CASE 152/79 LEE ν MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE

In Case 152/79 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court on Circuit, County of Sligo, Ireland, for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

THE COURT composed of: H. Kutscher, President, A. O'Keeffe and A. Touffait (Presidents of Chambers), J. Mertens de Wilmars, P. Pescatore, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, G. Bosco, T. Koopmans and O. Due, Judges, Advocate General: J.-P. Warner Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and procedure

(a) The legislative provisions

(b) Facts

II — Summary of the written observations submitted to the Court

Facts

First question

Second question

III — Oral procedure

Decision

First question

Second question

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

(a). The legislative provisions

(b). Facts

1. Does Council Directive No 72/159/. EEC, and in particular Articles 13 and 14 thereof, relate exclusively to farm development for agricultural purposes or does it provide also for development of land for the erection of dwelling-houses for occupation by persons other than those actively engaged in farming the land?

2. Is a provision such as that in the Farm Modernization Scheme introduced by the Minister for Agriculture of Ireland on 1 February 1974 to the effect that the decision of the Minister on any matter relating to the scheme or to any works thereunder shall be final contrary to the provisions of Council Directive No 72/159/EEC?

II —. Summary of the written observations submitted to the Court

(1). Council Directive No 72/159/EEC, and in particular Articles 13 and 14 thereof, relates exclusively to farm development for agricultural purposes in so far as applications for grants are concerned, but where an application has been made or granted under a national scheme in implementation of the Council directive, the applicant is not totally precluded by the terms of the said Council directive from selling a small portion of the land which formed the subject-matter of the grant for a purpose other than an agricultural purpose, such as for the erection of dwelling-houses for occupation by persons other than those actively engaged in farming the land.

(2). Council Directive No 72/159/EEC requires to be implemented in the Member States in a manner which ensures that the legal rights created by it under European Community law and intended to be secured for the benefit of individuals in the Member States are not diminished or removed by the manner of implementation of the directive in any Member State.

1. Directive No 72/159/EEC on the modernization of farms, and in particular Articles 13 and 14 thereof, relates exclusively to farm development and does not provide for development of dwelling-houses.

2. The implementation of Directive No 72/159/EEC must be effected through national measures which create legal rights for individuals which must be protected by the normal judicial remedies available under national law. A national provision which has the effect of taking away, wholly or partially, normal judicial remedies is incompatible with the directive.

III —. Oral procedure

1. By an order of 4 April 1979, which was received at the Court on 1 October 1979, the High Court of Ireland referred to the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Council Directive No 72/159/EEC of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of farms (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 324).

2. Those questions have arisen in the context of a dispute regarding an application for a grant for provision of a water supply under the Farm Modernization Scheme introduced by the Irish Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in implementation of the said Directive No 72/159 and of Council Directive No 73/131/EEC of 15 May 1973 on the guidance premium provided for in Article 10 of Directive No 72/159 (Official Journal L 153, p. 24).

3. The national court considered that interpretation of Directive No 72/159, and in particular Articles 13 and 14 therof, was necessary to enable it to examine the compatibility with that directive of the provisions of the Irish scheme in implementation thereof.

4. The first question asks whether Directive No 72/159, and in particular Articles 13 and 14 thereof, relates exclusively to farm development for agricultural purposes or whether it provides also for development of land for the erection of dwelling-houses for occupation by persons other than those actively engaged in farming the land.

5. According to the first two recitals of its preamble the objective of Directive No 72/159 is to contribute to the reform of agricultural structures, which is a basic factor in the development of the common agricultural policy. Article 1 obliges Member States, with a view to bringing about structural conditions conducive to a significant improvement in agricultural incomes and working and production conditions, to introduce a system of selective incentives to farms suitable for development, designed to encourage their operation and development under rational conditions.

6. Article 13 of the directive seeks to promote schemes for irrigation or for land re-parcelling with a view to modernizing farms which satisfy the conditions mentioned in Article 2 of the directive. Those conditions relate to the farmer, who must practise farming as his main occupation and possess adequate occupational skill and competence, the keeping of accounts, the plan for the development of the farm and also the earned income of the farm. Article 14 (2) of the directive is concerned with farms which do not satisfy those conditions but to which the Member States may nonetheless grant certain aids. Thus Article 14 (a), which the parties to the main action consider to be the provision which applies in this case, provides that Member States may, during a certain period, grant temporary aids to farmers who are not capable of attaining the level of earned income laid down by the directive and who are not yet eligible for the annuities provided for in Council Directive No 72/160 of 17 April 1972 concerning measures to encourage the cessation of farming and the reallocation of utilized agricultural area for the purposes of structural improvement (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 332).

7. These provisions make it apparent that Directive No 72/159 in general, and Articles 13 and 14 thereof in particular, is concerned only with development of land for agricultural purposes within the framework of a reform of agricultural structures and may not apply to the provision of water supply carried out with a view to the construction of dwelling-houses.

8. The answer to the first question should therefore be that Directive No 72/159, and in particular Articles 13 and 14 thereof, relates exclusively to farm development for agricultural purposes.

9. It is for the national court to decide whether the provision of a water supply which is the subject of the main action was carried out principally in order to service dwelling-houses or whether a part of that work related to the modernization of a farm.

10. Paragraph 12 of Part VII of the Irish Farm Modernization Scheme provides that the decision of the Minister on any matter relating to this Scheme or to any works thereunder shall be final. In its second question the national court asks whether such a provision is contrary to Directive No 72/159.

11. According to the information given to the Court by the parties to the main action and the Commission, a provision such as the Paragraph 12 quoted above does not exclude the exercise of any judicial remedy in relation to the legality of the Minister's decision under Irish law. However, it is not for the Court of Justice, within the framework of the function which it is called upon to perform under Article 177 of the Treaty, to interpret the domestic law of a Member State. The question put must therefore be understood as meaning that it asks what obligations the directive imposes on Member States as regards the remedies open to those have claimed the benefit of the advantages which it provides.

12. In the terms of Article 189 of the Treaty a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the Member State the choice of form and methods. The answer to the question put by the national court therefore depends on the result which Directive No 72/159 is intended to achieve. To answer it, therefore, it is appropriate to examine the provisions and the objectives of that directive in order to decide whether the result which it is intended to achieve includes making judicial remedies available against administrative decisions relating to the grant or refusal of the advantages contemplated by the directive.

13. Directive No 72/159 is concerned with the grant, by Member States, of financial incentives designed to improve structural conditions in agriculture. Title 1 of the directive obliges Member States to introduce a system of selective incentives to farms suitable for development where the farmer has drawn up a development plan which satisfies the conditions laid down in the directive. Within certain limits, the task of defining certain requirements which determine the scope of that selective system, such as, for example, that the farmer practises farming as his main occupation or that he possesses adequate occupational skill and competence is left to each Member State.

14. It is therefore apparent from these provisions that it is for the Member States themselves, acting on the basis of common concepts, to implement the measures envisaged by the Community and to determine themselves, on the basis of conditions laid down by the Community, the extent to which such measures should be intensified in or concentrated on certain regions.

15. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any contrary indication in its provisions, the directive must be understood as obliging or, as the case may be, authorizing Member States to establish or maintain schemes which satisfy, generally, the criteria laid down by the Community in regard to the reform of agricultural structures but which, for the rest, are constituted in accordance with the national law of each Member State.

16. From that it follows that Directive No 72/159 contains no specific obligations regarding the provision of judicial remedies in respect of administrative decisions taken in the framework of the national provisions laid down in implementation of it, that matter remaining subject to the national law of each Member State.

17. The answer to the second question should therefore be that the implementation of Directive No 72/159 entails, for the Member States to which it is addressed, no specific obligations to make judicial remedies available to persons claiming the benefit of the advantages envisaged by the directive.

18. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds, THE COURT in answer to the questions submitted to it by the High Court of Ireland by order of 4 April 1979, hereby rules:

1 Council Directive No 72/159 of 17 April 1972, and in particular Articles 13 and 14 thereof, relates exclusively to farm development for agricultural purposes.

2 The implementation of Directive No 72/159 entails, for the Member States to which it is addressed, no specific obligations to make judicial remedies available to persons claiming the benefit of the advantages envisaged by the directive.