C-152/79

T H E MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE

on the interpretation of Council Directive No 72/159/EEC of 17 April 1972 (Official Journal, English Special Edition, 1972 (II), p. 324) on the moderni- zation of farms,

T H E 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

The Minister for Agriculture awarded The other obligations imposed on him the sum of only 15 Irish Pounds on Member States by the directive include, the ground that the works carried out by in particular, the introduction of a Mr Lee did not relate exclusively to farm system of incentives to encourage the development or modernization but

JUDGMENT OF 6. 5. 1980 — CASE 152/79

related essentially to the provision of a By order of the First Chamber of water supply to a number of building 23 January 1980, the Court, in sites intended for the construction of pursuance of Article 104 (3) of the Rules dwelling-houses. of Procedure, decided to grant, as legal aid, assistance for the purpose of facil- In January 1978 Mr Lee brought itating the representation of the appellant proceedings against the Minister for in the main action. Agriculture in the Circuit Court of the County of Sligo. Xhe Minister for Agri- In accordance with Article 20 of the culture there contended that the court Protocol on the Statute of the Court of did not have jurisdiction to entertain Justice of the EEC written observations Mr Lee's claim since the Irish Farm were submitted on behalf of Mr Lee, the Modernization Scheme provides that the appellant in the main action, represented decision of the Minister on any matter by Mary Robinson, Barrister at Law, relating to the scheme or to any works instructed by Adrian P. Bourke & Co., thereunder shall be final (paragraph 12 Solicitors, by the Minister for Agri- of Part VII of the Farm Modernization culture of Ireland, respondent in the Scheme). main action, represented by Louis J. Dockery, Chief State Solicitor, acting On 28 April 1978 Mr Lee's claim was as Agent, assisted by Harold A. dismissed by the Circuit Court. He Whelehan, Barrister at Law, and by appealed to the High Court on Circuit. the Commission of the European By order of 4 April 1979 that court Communities, represented by Hendrik referred to the Court of Justice the Bronkhorst and Mary Minch, Members following questions for a preliminary of the Legal Department of the ruling: Commission, acting as Agents.

Mr Lee claims that the application for a for private dwellings on the four-acre water supply grant for the four-acre portion and he wanted to sell the sites as portion was made at or about the same serviced sites with a water supply. Mr time as the application for a land reclam­ Lee sold the two sites and obtained ation grant covering the two portions of planning permission for a third site. The his farm. He claims that when the three sites are located together and form Department of Agriculture denied any in total approximately one and a half knowledge of the original claim he re­ acres of the four-acre portion. The applied on 9 May 1976 and he submitted remainder of the portion is used for agri­ in evidence a copy of his letter to that cultural purposes, including the grazing effect. of cattle, and the cattle have access to water at the water trough installed for that purpose. Mr Lee submitted in evidence that he required and applied for the water installation grant because he needed a water supply to his agricultural land on this four-acre portion without which it could not be used to graze cattle. He further submitted that the cost of the reservoir and T-junction creating The work of reclaiming the land on the a water supply for the private dwellings two portions and installing the water was borne by him and is not included in supply on the four-acre portion was the invoices submitted in support of his carried out during 1975. Mr Lee bored claim for a proportion of the cost of for water and found a supply at 280 ft. installing a water supply. He submitted receipts to the Department of Agriculture showing that the total cost of boring for water and installing an underground pipeline to a drinking trough to be used by cattle on the land was approximately 1 400 Irish Pounds. Mr Lee applied for 30% of this total cost as a water supply grant under the scheme, and this formed the basis of his action in the Circuit Court for 420 Irish On 17 August 1977 Mr Lee received Pounds. approval under the scheme from the Department of Agriculture for a sum of 15 Irish Pounds being a proportion of the cost of extending the underground pipeline from the western edge of the plot and of the cost of installing the drinking trough. The grant approved did not extend to the cost of boring for the original water supply and installing a At the time when Mr Lee bored for pump, and was consequently rejected by water, installed a pump and pipeline to Mr Lee as being totally inadequate for the trough on his land, he also installed a the work which he had carried out and tank on his land to act as a reservoir for which he maintained was essential for a water supply, and inserted a T-junction the provision of a water supply to the off the main supply to the trough. Mr agricultural portion of his land. Sub­ Lee did this because he had applied for sequently the Department of Agriculture outline planning permission for two sites increased the amount offered from 15

— Except for that part of the appellant's claim for a grant in respect of the water supply to his four-acre parcel — In February 1975 Mr Lee applied to of land which related to the his local Chief Agricultural Officer extension of the water supply to his to join the Farm Modernization grazing lands and to the provision of Scheme. He was accepted into this a water trough, that application was scheme and classified as a farmer to refused on the ground that the work whom Article 14 (2) (a) of Directive carried out by Mr Lee in providing a No 72/159 applied. water supply on the lands served domestic purposes not related to agriculture, namely the provision of a water supply to service the sites for three separate dwelling-houses to be — The correctness of that classification sold by him. At least two of these is not in dispute in these proceedings. sites have since been sold and Mr Lee thereby became entitled to dwelling-houses have been erected on apply for a grant under Part IV of them by persons not engaged in the Farm Modernization Scheme farming Mr Lee's land.

LEE ν MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE

— It is the fact that the water supply in question are covered only if they relate respect of which Mr Lee claims a to farms. grant under the Farm Modernization Scheme is being used to service those dwellings which has given rise to this reference for a preliminary ruling The Commission points out that Article under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty. 14 of Directive N o 72/159 provides that "farm buildings" do not come within the scope of that provision. That means a fortiori that Article 14 is not concerned First question with private dwelling-houses.

JUDGMENT OF 6. 5. 1980 — CASE 152/79

Even if the clause has no legal effect it "(1) Council Directive No 72/159/EEC, would be objectionable under and in particular Articles 13 and 14 Community law because it could in thereof, relates exclusively to farm practice have the effect of depriving development for agricultural individuals of legal rights given to them purposes in so far as applications or of discouraging them from seeking for grants are concerned, but where legal redress. an application has been made or granted under a national scheme in implementation of the Council The question arises whether rights directive, the applicant is not totally conferred by a directive can be taken precluded by the terms of the said away by the method of implementation Council directive from selling a of the directive in a Member State. This small portion of the land which is a different question from that whether formed the subject-matter of the Council Directive No 72/159 has direct grant for a purpose other than an effect; it requires an interpretation of the agricultural purpose, such as for the scope of the rights secured to individuals erection of dwelling-houses for under Community law by the fact that a occupation by persons other than Council directive intends to have certain those actively engaged in farming rights secured to individuals through the the land. implementation of the directive in question in the Member States.

LEE ν MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE

conforms with Article 7 of Directive No In those circumstances, the question then 72/159. The Minister for Agriculture arises what legal remedies should be is the authority responsible for available to protect those rights. In this administering the scheme and ensuring context, the Commission refers to the that the provisions of the directives are case-law of the Court (judgment of 16 complied with. Paragraph 12 of Part VII December 1976 in Case 33/76 REWE- of the scheme provides that "the decision Zentralfinanz eG and REWE-Zentral AG of the Minister on any matter relating to ν Laiidwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland this scheme or to any works thereunder [1976] 2 ECR 1989 and the judgment of shall be final". 16 December 1976 in Case 45/76 Comet B V ν Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] 2 ECR 2043). In the REWE case the Court held that "applying the principle of cooperation laid down in The Minister for Agriculture does not, Article 5 of the Treaty, it is the national however, dispute that a failure on his courts which are entrusted with ensuring part to introduce the system required by the legal protection which citizens derive the directives and to comply with the from the direct effect of Community law provisions of the directives would give . . . . Accordingly, in the absence of rise to a valid cause of action against him Community rules on this subject, it is for in the Irish courts. Likewise, in the domestic legal system of each administering the scheme pursuant to the Member State to designate the courts directives, he is obliged to respect the having jurisdiction and to determine the rules of natural and constitutional justice. procedural conditions governing actions In this case, no claim has been made that at law intended to ensure the protection those rules have been infringed. of the rights which citizens have from the direct effect of Community law, it being understood that such conditions cannot be less favourable than those relating to similar actions of a domestic On the other hand, an Irish court has no nature". jurisdiction to uphold a claim for a grant under the scheme; nor has it jurisdiction to substitute its own judgment for that of the Minister.

the normal judicial remedies in each the Irish courts as not taking away, even State, whatever those remedies may be in part, any judicial remedies which exactly, must be available. Rights thus would otherwise have existed. In those created, directly or indirectly, under circumstances the clause in question is Community law must have remedies compatible with the directive. available for their enforcement. If such remedies were excluded not only would the aims of the directive be endangered In conclusion, the Commission submits but also there would not be the necessary that the Court should answer the degree of uniformity in the application questions put by the High Court as óf the directive and of the national follows : implementing measures, as between citizens of different Member States and " 1 . Directive No 72/159/EEC on the even between citizens of the same State. modernization of farms, and in Some degree of uniformity is necessary particular Articles 13 and 14 thereof, under Community law, under Articles 5 relates exclusively to farm and 7 of the EEC Treaty, in the development and does not provide implementation of the directive even if in for development of dwelling-houses. principle it has no direct effect. The Commissioni therefore, drawing upon the judgments of the Court in the above- 2. The implementation of Directive No mentioned cases, believes that, as regards 72/159/EEC must be effected the degree of legal protection which has through' national measures which to be ensured by the Member States in create legal rights for individuals implementing the directive in question, which must be protected by the the same requirements apply as laid normal judicial remedies available down in those two cases, namely that the under . national law. A national conditions governing actions to protect provision which has the effect of the rights of individuals flowing from the taking away, wholly or partially, national measures taken in normal judicial remedies is implementation of the directive may not incompatible with the directive." be less favourable than those which would govern similar actions relating to purely national measures but drafted to confer rights on individuals. III — Oral p r o c e d u r e

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.

First q u e s t i o n

4 The first question asks whether Directive No 72/159, and in particular Articles 13 and 14 thereof, relates exclusively to farm development for agri­ cultural 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.

JUDGMENT OF 6. 5. 1980 — CASE 152/79

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.

LEE ν MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE

Second question

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 N o 72/159.

1 1 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.

Under Article 7 Member States shall appoint the authorities responsible for examining applications submitted by persons wishing to benefit from the incentives provided for and approving development plans; the Member States are also to lay down an examination and approval procedure. Title II of the directive provides for other measures to assist farms; its provisions oblige Member States to introduce certain systems of incentives or aids and authorize Member States to grant certain special or temporary aids. Title III, finally, provides that certain expenditure incurred by Member States for the purpose of measures taken under the directive shall be eligible for assistance from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund; it also provides that, when submitting their laws, regulations or administrative provisions in pursuance of the directive, Member States shall also submit an explanatory memorandum showing the relationship at regional level between the measure in question on the one hand and the economic situation and the conditions of the agricultural framework on the other hand.

1 4 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.

1 5 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.

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.

Kutscher O'Keeffe Touffait Mertens de Wilmars Pescatore

Mackenzie Stuart Bosco Koopmans Due