The significance of autonomous interpretation of the term ‘beneficiary’ for the EU funds management system under the Cohesion Policy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15290/eejtr.2023.07.01.08Keywords:
European Union law, Cohesion Policy, Law Enforcement, Law Making, Procedural Law, Legal definitionAbstract
Adoption of the EU budget involves drafting of EU regulations that provide a uniform framework for spending the allocated funds. Such was also the case in the current period of programming EU funds what are spent pursuant to regulations that are directly binding in all Member States. The Polish legislator has introduced domestic regulations which accommodate a number of legal definitions including one of the term ‘beneficiary’, which in essence refers to provisions laid down in EU regulations. As a consequence, it means that EU laws that are subject to officially binding interpretation of the Court of Justice should be applied accordingly. Earlier decisions which addressed both the rights and obligations of the ‘beneficiary’ must be recognized as at least substantiated for the needs of implementing the Cohesion Policy. This article aims to analyse and assess the practice of implementing the term ‘beneficiary’ in the European Union from the perspective of European Union law in the context of Cohesion Policy. It considers present Polish legislative changes which followed the changes in at the Union level in the area of Cohesion Policy concerning the term ‘beneficiary’. The author mainly use the formal-dogmatic method typical to law studies. The author analyse the case-law concerning the term ‘beneficiary’ in Cohesion Policy. The analysis is based on the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The assessment includes only relevant judgements issued by the European Court Justice, which still play a significant role in present legislative changes driven at the Union level regarding Cohesion Policy. This text provides an overview of the general requirements for implementing European Law in accordance with the basic standards construed by the European Court of Justice. The paper deals with the autonomous interpretation of the term ‘beneficiary’ in the procedure of distributing EU in the field of Cohesion Policy. The author indicates the applicable interpretation of the scope of the term ‘beneficiary’ and outlines how the state administration bodies in the domestic legal system are charged with enforcing the term ‘beneficiary’. In conclusion of this paper, the author points out that the European Court of Justice did not directly construe the legal definition ‘beneficiary’ existing in European law. However, the optimal functioning of administrative bodies of Member States should take into consideration some judgements of ECJ concerning the fore-mentioned term. Such proceedings can be helpful in adjusting the legal system of implementation of Cohesion Policy in every Member State. More precisely, such proceedings are necessary to adapt appropriately the provisions of the legislative changes existing in the present EU regulation on the Cohesion Policy. In consequence, it can also eliminate potential administrative barriers and give more protection to the actors applying for EU grants.
Downloads
References
Act of 28 April 2022 on the procedure to carry out tasks co-financed from European funds in the financial perspective 2021-2027 (Journal of Laws) of 2022 item 1079.
Babiarz-Mikulska, K. (2022). On the Common Language of Legislative Instruments, the Problems and the Legal Certainty in the European Community Law: Selected Issues Against the Background of the Principle of Autonomy of European Law Versus National Law and the Principle of Equal Authenticity of All the Language Versions of the EU law. Kwartalnik Prawa Międzynarodowego, 1, 62.
Baran, M. (2014). Stosowanie z urzędu prawa Unii Europejskiej przez sądy krajowe. Lex a Wolters Kluwer business.
Barents, R. (2004). The Autonomy of Community Law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Bremer, J. W. (2005). Wprowadzenie do logiki. Wydawnictwo WAM.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU (Regulation 800/08 is no longer in force. Date of end of validity: 30/06/2014; Repealed by 32014R0651).
Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty. Text with EEA relevance.
Doczekalska, A. (2006). Interpretacja wielojęzycznego prawa Unii Europejskiej. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 5.
Doczekalska, A. & Jaśkiewicz, J. (2014). Wykładnia aktów wielojęzycznego prawa pochodnego Unii Europejskiej przez polskie sądy administracyjne. Zeszyty Naukowe Sądownictwa Administracyjnego, 5.
Ghevontian, R. (2007). Autonomia prawa wspólnotowego. In: M. Granat (Ed.), Stosowanie prawa międzynarodowego i wspólnotowego w wewnętrznym porządku prawnym Francji i Polski. Materiały z polsko francuskiej konferencji naukowej. Warszawa, 21-22 października 2005 roku. Wydawnictwo Sejmowe.
Jakubek-Lalik, J. (2016). Krajowa administracja publiczna w warunkach członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej. In R. Grzeszczak & A. Szczerba-Zawadzka (Eds.), Prawo administracyjne Unii Europejskiej. Instytut Wydawnictwo EuroPrawo.
Jedlecka, W. (2005). Z zagadnień autonomii prawa wspólnotowego. In: J. Kaczor (Ed.). Z zagadnień teorii i filozofii prawa. Teoria prawa europejskiego. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
Judgement of the Court of 5 February 1963. Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse administratie der belastingen, ECR 1963, p. 3, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1.
Judgement of the Court of 15 July 1964. Case C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L., ECR 1964 01141, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.
Judgement of the Court of 22 March 1983. Case 34/82 Martin Peters Bauunternehmung GmbH v Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging. ECR 1983, p. 00987.
Judgement of the Court of 21 September 1983. Joined cases 205 to 215/82. Deutsche Milchkontor GmbH and others v Federal Republic of Germany, ECR 1983 02633, ECLI:EU:C:1983:233, para 19.
Judgement of the Court of 12 December 1985. Case C-67/84 Sideradria SpA v Commission of the European Communities. ECR 1985, p. 03983, para 21.
Judgement of the Court of 15 December 1987. Case 326/85 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities, ECR 1987 05091; ECLI:EU:C:1987:547, para 24.
Judgement of the Court of 8 March 1988. Case 9/87 SPRL Arcado v SA Haviland. ECR 1988, p. 01539, ECLI:EU:C:1988:127.
Judgement of the Court of 14 December 1995. Joined cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 Jeroen van Schijndel and Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten, ECR 1995 I-04705, ECLI:EU:C:1995:441.
Judgement of the Court of 14 December 1995. Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout & Cie SCS v Belgian State, ECR 1995 I-04599, ECLI:EU:C:1995:437.
Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 1998. Case T 142/97 Eugénio Branco, Ldª v Commission of the European Communities. ECR 1998, p. II-03567, paras 97 and 105 (appeal rejected by decision of the Court of 12 November 1999. Case C 453/99 P Branco v Commission of the European Communities, Rec. str. I 8037).
Judgement of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 May 1998. Case C-366/95 Landbrugsministeriet - EF-Direktoratet v Steff-Houlberg Export I/S, Nowaco A/S, Nowaco Holding A/S and SMC af 31/12-1989 A/S. ECR 1998 I-02661, ECLI:EU:C:1998:216 para 15.
Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 1999. Case T 182/96 Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA v Commission of the European Communities. ECR 1999, p. II-02673, para 190 (appeal rejected by decision of the Court of 8 March 2001. Case C 465/99 P Partex v Commission, not published in the Records)].
Judgement of the Court of 14 December 2000. Case C-446/98 Fazenda Pública v Câmara Municipal do Porto, ECLI:EU:C:2000:691.
Judgement of the Court of 19 September 2002. Case C-336/00 Republik Österreich v Martin Huber, ECR 2002, p. I-07699, ECLI:EU:C:2002:509, para 55.
Judgement of the Court of 16 March 2006. Case C-94/05 Emsland-Stärke GmbH v Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover. ECR 2006 I-02619; ECLI:EU:C:2006:185, para 43.
Judgement of the Court of 26 October 2006. Case C-248/04 Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit. ECR 2006, p. I-10211, ECLI:EU:C:2006:666, para 79.
Judgement of the Court of 13 March 2008. Joined cases C-383/06 - C-385/06 Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening (C-383/06) and Gemeente Rotterdam (C-384/06) v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid and Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant (C-385/06) v Algemene Directie voor de Arbeidsvoorziening. ECR 2008 I-01561 ECLI:EU:C:2008:165.
Judgement of the Court of 21 March 2013. Case C 129/12 Magdeburger Mühlenwerke GmbH v Finanzamt Magdeburg, ECLI:EU:C:2013:200 para 40.
Judgement of the Court of 6 July 2017. Case C 245/16 Nerea SpA v Regione Marche, ECLI:EU:C:2017:521.
Judgement of the Court of 1 October 2020. Case C 743/18 LSEZ SIA “Elme Messer Metalurgs” v Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra, ECLI:EU:C:2020:767.
Kalisz, A. (2007). Wykładnia i stosowanie prawa wspólnotowego. Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Kapteyn, P.J.G., & VerLoren van Themaat, P. (1998). Introduction to the law of the European Communities from Maastricht to Amsterdam. Deventer-Boston: Kluwer Law International.
Kenig-Witkowska, M. M. (2013). Prawo Unii Europejskiej jako autonomiczna dyscyplina prawa. In: T. Giaro (Ed.), Dziedziny prawa, dyscypliny i metody prawnicze, XIV Konferencja Wydziału Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 1 marca 2013. Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Nowak-Far, A. (2016). Co wielojęzyczność tekstów prawnych Unii Europejskiej mówi o naturze prawa? In: M. Kłodawski, A. Witorska & M. Lachowski (Eds.), Legislacja czasu przemian, przemiany legislacji. Księga Jubileuszowa na XX-lecie Polskiego Towarzystwa Legislacji. Wydawnictwo Sejmowe.
Patryas, W. (2001). Rozważania o normach prawnych. Wydawnictwo Forum Naukowe.
Pieńkoś, J. (1999). Podstawy juryslingwistyki. Język w prawie – Prawo w języku. Oficyna Prawnicza MUZA S.A..
Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund (OJ J L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 1–706 and OJ L 421, 26.11, 2021, p. 74).
Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 (OJ J L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 21–706 and OJ L 421, 26.11.2021, p. 75).
Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund (OJ J L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 60–706 and OJ L 13, 20.01.2022, p. 74).
Regulation (EU) 2021/1059 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on specific provisions for the European territorial cooperation goal (Interreg) supported by the European Regional Development Fund and external financing instruments (OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 94–158).
Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (OJ J L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159–706 and OJ L 261, 22.07.2021, p. 58).
The Treaty on European Union, Official Journal C 326 (2012).
Tkaczyński, J.W., & Świstak, M. (2015). Polityki publiczne – zagadnienia teoretyczne. In M. Świstak & J. W. Tkaczyński (Eds.), Wybrane polityki publiczne Unii Europejskiej. Stan i perspektywy. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Unterschütz, J. (2022). Europejska autonomiczna definicja pracownika i jej implikacje dla osób samozatrudnionych w sferze indywidualnego i zbiorowego prawa pracy. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica, 101.
Van Cleynenbreugel, P. (2012). Judge-Made Standards of National Procedure in Post-Lisbon Constitutional Framework. European Law Review, 1.
Winter, J. A. (1972). Direct Applicability and Direct Effect. Two Distinct and Different Concepts in Community Law. Common Market Law Review, 9.
Ziembiński, Z. (1956). O zwrotach definicyjnych w ustawodawstwie PRL. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Sesja naukowa młodych pracowników nauki Wydziału Prawa UAM. Zeszyt specjalny.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Robert Talaga
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1. The Author declares that he or she has created the written work and holds exclusive and unlimited copyright /both moral and property rights/ and guarantees that no third parties have rights to the work.
2. In the view of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, a work must fulfill the following criterion:
a) be a manifestation of creative work,
b) have an individual character („author’s personal stamp”),
c) have a set form.
3. The Author declares that the text has not been previously published (under the same or different title, or as a part of another publication).
4. The Author allows (grants a non-exclusive license) the publishing house of University of Białystok to use the scholarly text to:
- preserve and multiply by means of any technique; save in a digital form with no limitations as to the manner and form of digital preservation;
- upload online with no limitations as to the place and time of access.
5. The Author grants consent for editorial changes made in the work.
6. The Author grants the University of Białystok rights free of charge for the duration of property copyright with no territory limits. The University has the right to grant sublicenses in the acquired rights.
7. Granting a non-exclusive license allows the Author to preserve their rights and allows other parties to make use of the work according to sublicensing agreement with provisions identical as those of Attribution 4.0 Internacional License (CC BY 4.0), available online at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. License to all its content published from 2023 and CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 to all its content published from 2017 to 2022.
8. The Agreement has been concluded for an indefinite period of time.
9. Because of costs born in preparation of the work for publishing, the Parties oblige themselves to act in good faith and refrain from declining to grant licenses.
10. To all matters not settled herein, provisions of the Civil Code and Copyright and Related Rights Act of 1994, February 4 shall apply.
11. All disputes shall be resolved by a court of local jurisdiction for the place of seat of University of Białystok.
