# C_2020279EN.01001901.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 28 February 2020 — S.C. Avio Lucos SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dolj, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central

(Case C-116/20)

(2020/C 279/26)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timișoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S.C. Avio Lucos SRL

Defendants: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dolj, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central

Questions referred

| 1. | Does [EU] law applicable to financial support relating to the agricultural year 2014 — in particular Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) and Regulation No 1122/2009 (2) — preclude the introduction, through national legislation, of an obligation to provide proof of the right to use an area of land for the purpose of obtaining financial support relating to area schemes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does [EU] law applicable to financial support relating to the agricultural year 2014 — in particular Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) and Regulation No 1122/2009 (2) — preclude the introduction, through national legislation, of an obligation to provide proof of the right to use an area of land for the purpose of obtaining financial support relating to area schemes?

| 2. | In so far as the abovementioned [EU] law does not preclude the national legislation referred to in Question 1, does [EU] law (including the principle of proportionality) preclude — in the particular case where the right to exploit the agricultural area has been justified by the beneficiary by submitting a concession contract for an area of pastureland (under which the applicant acquired the right to exploit the pastureland at his own risk and for his benefit, in return for a fixed sum) — national legislation which imposes, for such a concession contract to be valid, the condition that the future concessionaire must be only a keeper or owner of animals? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In so far as the abovementioned [EU] law does not preclude the national legislation referred to in Question 1, does [EU] law (including the principle of proportionality) preclude — in the particular case where the right to exploit the agricultural area has been justified by the beneficiary by submitting a concession contract for an area of pastureland (under which the applicant acquired the right to exploit the pastureland at his own risk and for his benefit, in return for a fixed sum) — national legislation which imposes, for such a concession contract to be valid, the condition that the future concessionaire must be only a keeper or owner of animals?

| 3. | Does the activity of a beneficiary under an area scheme who — after concluding a concession contract for pastureland for the purpose of obtaining the right to exploit that area and obtaining rights to aid in the agricultural year 2014 — subsequently concludes a cooperation contract with livestock farmers by which he permits use, free of charge, of the land granted for the purposes of grazing animals, and the beneficiary retains the right to use the land but undertakes not to hinder grazing and to clean up the pastureland, fall within the definition of agricultural activity set out in Article 2 of Regulation No 73/2009? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the activity of a beneficiary under an area scheme who — after concluding a concession contract for pastureland for the purpose of obtaining the right to exploit that area and obtaining rights to aid in the agricultural year 2014 — subsequently concludes a cooperation contract with livestock farmers by which he permits use, free of charge, of the land granted for the purposes of grazing animals, and the beneficiary retains the right to use the land but undertakes not to hinder grazing and to clean up the pastureland, fall within the definition of agricultural activity set out in Article 2 of Regulation No 73/2009?

| 4. | Does [EU] law preclude an interpretation of a national legal provision, such as Article 431(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure — on the status of res judicata of a final judicial decision — to the effect that a final judicial decision finding a payment application ineligible on the ground of failure to comply with national law as regards the requirement relating to the lawfulness of the right to exploit/use the land in respect of which an area scheme has been applied for in the agricultural year 2014 (in a dispute in which annulment of the decision imposing multiannual penalties has been sought), and which prevents analysis of the conformity of that national requirement with [EU] law applicable in the agricultural year 2014 in a new dispute in which the lawfulness of the measure recovering the sums unduly paid to the applicant is examined, in respect of the same agricultural year 2014, and the measure is based on the same facts and the same national legislation which were analysed in the earlier final judicial decision? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does [EU] law preclude an interpretation of a national legal provision, such as Article 431(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure — on the status of res judicata of a final judicial decision — to the effect that a final judicial decision finding a payment application ineligible on the ground of failure to comply with national law as regards the requirement relating to the lawfulness of the right to exploit/use the land in respect of which an area scheme has been applied for in the agricultural year 2014 (in a dispute in which annulment of the decision imposing multiannual penalties has been sought), and which prevents analysis of the conformity of that national requirement with [EU] law applicable in the agricultural year 2014 in a new dispute in which the lawfulness of the measure recovering the sums unduly paid to the applicant is examined, in respect of the same agricultural year 2014, and the measure is based on the same facts and the same national legislation which were analysed in the earlier final judicial decision?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).

---