# C_2012133EN.01001901.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 February 2012 — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia

(Case C-93/12)

2012/C 133/34

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov

Applicant:

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the principle of effectiveness set out in the case-law [of the Court of Justice] of the European Union and the principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not permitting a national procedural rule such as Article 133(1) of the Code of administrative procedure which makes jurisdiction for administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the European Union’s common agricultural policy dependent solely on the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act, considering that that rule does not take into consideration the place in which the properties are located and the place of residence of the person seeking justice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the principle of effectiveness set out in the case-law [of the Court of Justice] of the European Union and the principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not permitting a national procedural rule such as Article 133(1) of the Code of administrative procedure which makes jurisdiction for administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the European Union’s common agricultural policy dependent solely on the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act, considering that that rule does not take into consideration the place in which the properties are located and the place of residence of the person seeking justice?

| 2. | Is the principle of equivalence set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to be interpreted as not permitting a national procedural rule such as Article 133(1) of the Code of administrative procedure which makes jurisdiction for administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the European Union’s common agricultural policy dependent solely on the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act, if account is taken of paragraph 19 of the transitional and final provisions of the Law amending and supplementing the Code of Administrative Procedure (which concerns jurisdiction for domestic administrative disputes concerning agricultural land)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the principle of equivalence set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to be interpreted as not permitting a national procedural rule such as Article 133(1) of the Code of administrative procedure which makes jurisdiction for administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the European Union’s common agricultural policy dependent solely on the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act, if account is taken of paragraph 19 of the transitional and final provisions of the Law amending and supplementing the Code of Administrative Procedure (which concerns jurisdiction for domestic administrative disputes concerning agricultural land)?

---