# C_2022266EN.01001001.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 March 2022 — Instituto de Financiamento de Agricultura e Pescas, IP v CS

(Case C-213/22)

(2022/C 266/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Instituto de Financiamento de Agricultura e Pescas, IP

Respondent: CS

Questions referred

| 1. | May repayment of the maintenance costs and premiums for loss of income provided for in Article 3(b) and (c) respectively of Regulation No 2080/92 (1) of 30 June 1992 be required where the beneficiary proves that the afforestation conditions required by the national aid programme were not met for reasons beyond his or her control and he or she made every effort to achieve the outcome? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May repayment of the maintenance costs and premiums for loss of income provided for in Article 3(b) and (c) respectively of Regulation No 2080/92 (1) of 30 June 1992 be required where the beneficiary proves that the afforestation conditions required by the national aid programme were not met for reasons beyond his or her control and he or she made every effort to achieve the outcome?

| 2. | Is the outcome produced by the rules interpreting Article 7(b) of Ministerial Order No 199/94 in conjunction with Article 26 of that order, according to which the occurrence of adverse weather conditions in the years following the evaluation year (which is the year following the year of the restocking) results in partial repayment of the premiums, whereas where the same outcomes, caused by the same adverse weather conditions, occur in the year following the restocking, this results in total loss of entitlement to premiums, consistent with the rules of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the outcome produced by the rules interpreting Article 7(b) of Ministerial Order No 199/94 in conjunction with Article 26 of that order, according to which the occurrence of adverse weather conditions in the years following the evaluation year (which is the year following the year of the restocking) results in partial repayment of the premiums, whereas where the same outcomes, caused by the same adverse weather conditions, occur in the year following the restocking, this results in total loss of entitlement to premiums, consistent with the rules of EU law?

| 3. | Must the outcome established in Article 7(1)(b) of Ministerial Order No 199/94, which results in total loss of the beneficiary’s entitlements to premiums for maintenance and loss of income where the reforestation density established in Annex C is not achieved, with no scope for a proportional reduction in payment of the aforementioned premiums where the outcome can be attributed to external factors such as the weather, be considered contrary to the proportionality principle as a general principle of the European Union, as appears to be implied (a contrario sensu) by the judgment in József Lingurâr (C-315/16, paragraphs 29 and 35)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the outcome established in Article 7(1)(b) of Ministerial Order No 199/94, which results in total loss of the beneficiary’s entitlements to premiums for maintenance and loss of income where the reforestation density established in Annex C is not achieved, with no scope for a proportional reduction in payment of the aforementioned premiums where the outcome can be attributed to external factors such as the weather, be considered contrary to the proportionality principle as a general principle of the European Union, as appears to be implied (a contrario sensu) by the judgment in József Lingurâr (C-315/16, paragraphs 29 and 35)?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture (OJ 1922 L 215, p. 96).

---