# C_2022340EN.01001601.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 May 2022 — Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ v IW

(Case C-329/22)

(2022/C 340/20)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

Defendant: IW

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the second sentence of Article 29(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (‘Regulation [EU] No 1305/2013’) be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as Article 11(5) (formerly Article 11(4)) of Naredba No 4 ot 24.02.2015 za prilagane na myarka 11 ‘Biologichno zemedelie’ ot Programata za razvitie na selskite rayoni za perioda 2014-2020 (Ordinance No 4 of 24 February 2015 on the application of measure 11 ‘Organic farming’ of the Rural Development Programme for the period 2014-2020), under which the possibility of receiving financial support for organic production during conversion is limited to a period not exceeding the minimum conversion periods under Article 36(1), Article 37(1) and Article 38 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (2) of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the second sentence of Article 29(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (‘Regulation [EU] No 1305/2013’) be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as Article 11(5) (formerly Article 11(4)) of Naredba No 4 ot 24.02.2015 za prilagane na myarka 11 ‘Biologichno zemedelie’ ot Programata za razvitie na selskite rayoni za perioda 2014-2020 (Ordinance No 4 of 24 February 2015 on the application of measure 11 ‘Organic farming’ of the Rural Development Programme for the period 2014-2020), under which the possibility of receiving financial support for organic production during conversion is limited to a period not exceeding the minimum conversion periods under Article 36(1), Article 37(1) and Article 38 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (2) of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must the second sentence of Article 29(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are authorised to lay down by statute a maximum period for the granting of support for conversion to organic farming on the sole basis of the type of production and not on the basis of the particularities of each individual case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must the second sentence of Article 29(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are authorised to lay down by statute a maximum period for the granting of support for conversion to organic farming on the sole basis of the type of production and not on the basis of the particularities of each individual case?

| 3. | How must the phrase ‘Member States may determine a shorter initial period corresponding to the period of conversion’ ([second] sentence of Article 29(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013) be interpreted? Are the terms ‘initial period’ and ‘period of conversion’ used interchangeably or do they have different meanings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How must the phrase ‘Member States may determine a shorter initial period corresponding to the period of conversion’ ([second] sentence of Article 29(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013) be interpreted? Are the terms ‘initial period’ and ‘period of conversion’ used interchangeably or do they have different meanings?

| 4. | Must the phrase ‘Member States may determine a shorter initial period corresponding to the period of conversion’ in the [second] sentence of Article 29(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that the entire ‘organic farming’ measure applies to activities for ‘conversion’ to organic farming for a period shorter than that referred to in the first sentence of Article 29(3) of that regulation, or must that phrase be interpreted as meaning that, within the framework of the overall commitment to ‘organic farming’, there is an initial period for activities during the conversion to organic farming? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must the phrase ‘Member States may determine a shorter initial period corresponding to the period of conversion’ in the [second] sentence of Article 29(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that the entire ‘organic farming’ measure applies to activities for ‘conversion’ to organic farming for a period shorter than that referred to in the first sentence of Article 29(3) of that regulation, or must that phrase be interpreted as meaning that, within the framework of the overall commitment to ‘organic farming’, there is an initial period for activities during the conversion to organic farming?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 250, p. 1.

---