Judgment_paragraph 58 · Republik Österreich v Martin Huber (C-336/00)

58Moreover, it is settled case-law that the beneficiary of aid may challenge a demand for recovery only if he acted in good faith when applying for it (see, to that effect, Oelmühle and Schmidt Söhne, paragraph 29). In that regard, it is for the national court to consider:— whether the ÖPUL directive was sufficiently clear in prohibiting the use of the plant protection products mentioned in paragraph 20 of the present judgment, taking into account the observations set out by the Advocate General at point 127 of his Opinion;— whether specific obligations relating to the use of plant protection products were clearly evident from the aid application form or the notices annexed to it, taking into account the observations set out by the Advocate General at point 121 of his Opinion;— whether the ÖPUL directive had been incorporated, in whole or in part, in the aid contract;— whether the draft of the ÖPUL directive or its final text had in fact been made known to Mr Huber;— or, if this was not the case, whether Mr Huber had been negligent, as a farmer exercising ordinary care would not have been, in not seeking to obtain precise knowledge of the content of the ÖPUL directive by travelling to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in Vienna in order to consult the text of the directive and, specifically, whether the need for such an on-the-spot consultation in order to learn the full extent of their obligations did not place an excessive burden on the farmers concerned.