# C_2023155EN.01003301.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 14 February 2023 — FJ v Agrárminiszter

(Case C-79/23, Kaszamás (1))

(2023/C 155/43)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FJ

Defendant: Agrárminiszter

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the concept of a finding as defined in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, on the financing of the common agricultural policy, (2) applicable when it comes to interpreting and applying Article 58, third paragraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009? (3) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the concept of a finding as defined in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, on the financing of the common agricultural policy, (2) applicable when it comes to interpreting and applying Article 58, third paragraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009? (3)

| 2. | If the answer to the preceding question referred is yes, must the concept of a finding as defined in Article 35 of Regulation No 1290/2005 be interpreted as meaning that the calendar year of the primary administrative or judicial finding is to be regarded as the calendar year in which the authority handling the administrative procedure initiated on the basis of the claim:






  — | carries out the first evidence-gathering action in which it establishes the existence of an irregularity, which, in the present case, is the year in which the report containing the conclusions of the on-the-spot check was written, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the preceding question referred is yes, must the concept of a finding as defined in Article 35 of Regulation No 1290/2005 be interpreted as meaning that the calendar year of the primary administrative or judicial finding is to be regarded as the calendar year in which the authority handling the administrative procedure initiated on the basis of the claim:

—

carries out the first evidence-gathering action in which it establishes the existence of an irregularity, which, in the present case, is the year in which the report containing the conclusions of the on-the-spot check was written, or

| — | takes the first decision with regard to the substance of the matter on the basis of that evidence-gathering action, or |
| --- | --- |

—

takes the first decision with regard to the substance of the matter on the basis of that evidence-gathering action, or

| — | in the context of the procedure, takes the final and definitive decision determining the exclusion? |
| --- | --- |

—

in the context of the procedure, takes the final and definitive decision determining the exclusion?

| 3. | Does the fact that the written assessment that constitutes the finding may subsequently be withdrawn or adjusted as a result of the interested party’s right of appeal under the regulations and not as a consequence of changes in the administrative or judicial procedure have a bearing on the answer to the preceding question referred? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the fact that the written assessment that constitutes the finding may subsequently be withdrawn or adjusted as a result of the interested party’s right of appeal under the regulations and not as a consequence of changes in the administrative or judicial procedure have a bearing on the answer to the preceding question referred?

| 4. | If the calendar year of the finding is that of the first evidence-gathering action and, as is the case in this case, that action consisted of an on-the-spot check carried out on different occasions, must the concept of first evidence-gathering action in relation to Article 35 of Regulation No 1290/2005 be interpreted such that it equates to the first on-the-spot check by the authority or the final on-the-spot check, in which the observations and evidence provided by the interested party were also taken into account? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the calendar year of the finding is that of the first evidence-gathering action and, as is the case in this case, that action consisted of an on-the-spot check carried out on different occasions, must the concept of first evidence-gathering action in relation to Article 35 of Regulation No 1290/2005 be interpreted such that it equates to the first on-the-spot check by the authority or the final on-the-spot check, in which the observations and evidence provided by the interested party were also taken into account?

| 5. | If the answer to the first question referred is no, is there, on that account, any change in the previously defined content of the finding which must be taken into account for the purposes of Article 58, third paragraph, of Regulation No 1122/2009? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to the first question referred is no, is there, on that account, any change in the previously defined content of the finding which must be taken into account for the purposes of Article 58, third paragraph, of Regulation No 1122/2009?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1.

(3)  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).

---