# C_2017369EN.01000501.xml

| 30.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Nikolay Yanchev v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-481/17)

(2017/C 369/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nikolay Yanchev

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is paragraph 16 of Decision C(2011) 863 final of the European Commission of 11 February 2011, adopted pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU, declaring State aid No 546/2010 of the Republic of Bulgaria for investment in agricultural holdings in the form of corporate tax relief to be compatible with Article 107(3) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the light of the Commission’s powers, on the one hand, and of the principles of procedural autonomy and legal certainty, on the other, it is permissible to apply a national rule under which the period laid down in that paragraph for reviewing whether the conditions governing the State aid granted have been met is to be construed only as being indicative and not as being an exclusionary period? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is paragraph 16 of Decision C(2011) 863 final of the European Commission of 11 February 2011, adopted pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU, declaring State aid No 546/2010 of the Republic of Bulgaria for investment in agricultural holdings in the form of corporate tax relief to be compatible with Article 107(3) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the light of the Commission’s powers, on the one hand, and of the principles of procedural autonomy and legal certainty, on the other, it is permissible to apply a national rule under which the period laid down in that paragraph for reviewing whether the conditions governing the State aid granted have been met is to be construed only as being indicative and not as being an exclusionary period?

| 2. | Are paragraphs 7, 8, 14 and 45 of the Commission Decision, taken together and construed teleologically and in the light of the principle of proportionality, to be interpreted as meaning that the lawful receipt/lawful claiming of the aid may be made dependent only on compliance with the national provisions concerning aid implementation specifically mentioned in that Commission Decision, or is it permissible also to require compliance with further conditions under national law which do not pursue the objectives served by the granting of the State aid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are paragraphs 7, 8, 14 and 45 of the Commission Decision, taken together and construed teleologically and in the light of the principle of proportionality, to be interpreted as meaning that the lawful receipt/lawful claiming of the aid may be made dependent only on compliance with the national provisions concerning aid implementation specifically mentioned in that Commission Decision, or is it permissible also to require compliance with further conditions under national law which do not pursue the objectives served by the granting of the State aid?

---