Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:198
Date: 2025-03-20
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-116/24 – 1 
Case C-116/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
12 February 2024 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 November 2023 
Appellant: 
Porcellino Grasso SRL 
Respondents: 
Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale 
Agenția pentru Finanțarea Investițiilor Rurale 
Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție în Agricultură 
Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție în Agricultură – Centrul Județean 
Vâlcea 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action for annulment of an administrative act, brought by the appellant Porcellino 
Grasso SRL against the respondents Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale 
(Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Romania, ‘MADR’), Agência 
pentru Finanțarea Investițiilor Rurale (Agency for the Financing of Rural 
Investments, Romania, ‘AFIR’), Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție în Agricultură 
(Agency for Payments and Interventions in Agriculture, Romania, ‘APIA’), and 
Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură – Centrul Județean Vâlcea 
(Agency for Payments and Interventions in Agriculture – Vâlcea District Centre, 
Romania, ‘APIA Vâlcea’). 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-116/24 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
On the basis of Article 267 TFEU, the referring court is seeking, first, an 
interpretation of Articles 288, 291 and 297 TFEU, Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1974/2006 and Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and of 
the principle of Union law according to which a decision of the European 
Commission produces legal effects until it is annulled; second, guidance on the 
observance of a preliminary ruling in view of a judgment of the General Court on 
an action for annulment of a Commission decision in a similar case; and, third, 
guidance on the application of the principle of assumption of liability by the State. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
a) Do the provisions of Articles 288, 291, and 297 TFEU, the principle of [EU] 
law according to which a decision of the European Commission produces legal 
effects until it is annulled – as that principle has been enshrined in the judgments 
[of the Court of Justice] in Cases C-245/92 P (Chemie Linz v Commission), 
C-475/01 (Commission v Greece), C-362/14 (Schrems), C-533/10 (CIVAD), 
314/85 (Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost], C-644/17 (Eurobolt) and 
C-199/06 (CELF and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication) – as well as 
Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 and Articles 18 and 19 of 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 preclude a practice of the Romanian national 
authorities involving the adoption of internal measures that are contrary to 
European Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 3529 of 25 May 2012 
correcting the Programul Național de Dezvoltare Rurală (PNDR), Romania’s rural 
development programme for the programming period 2007-2013, and thus 
disapplying that decision, as long as it has not been amended or annulled? 
b) Having regard to the general obligation of the Member States to comply 
with EU law, where a national court finds itself in a situation where it is 
complying with an interpretative judgment delivered by the [Court of Justice] 
under Article 267 TFEU (namely, the judgment of 17 November 2022 in Case 
C-443/21), and that judgment does not contain assessments as to the validity and 
effects of the European Commission’s implementing decisions (Commission 
Decision C(2012) 3529 final of 25 May 2012 and Commission Decision 2018/873 
of 13 June 2018) but rather only [assessments] on the recovery of funding in the 
absence of a decision of the European Commission to that effect, is the national 
court in question entitled to take into account, when ruling on the dispute before it, 
the effects of and reasoning (the considerations made) in a judgment of the 
General Court of the European Union, given in an action for annulment governed 
by Article 263 TFEU and annulling an implementing decision of the European 
Commission in a similar case (namely, the judgment of 18 January 2023, given in 
Case T-33/21)? 
c) Does the principle of assumption of liability by the State require that, in a 
situation such as that in the present case, the Romanian State must pay the rates of 
PORCELLINO GRASSO 
 
3 
support to the beneficiaries of Measure 215, in the amount laid down in 
Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 3529 of 25 May 2012, for the entire 
duration of their commitments? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
– Articles 288, 291, 297 and 310 TFEU 
– Articles 18, 19 and 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 
20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) 
– Article 9(3) and Article 27(2) to (13) of Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application 
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by 
the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) 
– Article 143 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the 
European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion 
Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund, laying down general provisions on the European 
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and 
the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1083/2006 
– Article 33(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 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 
– Article 58 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring 
of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) 
No 352/78, (EC) No 65/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) 
No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 
– Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 3529 final of 25 May 2012 
correcting the Programul Național de Dezvoltare Rurală (PNDR), Romania’s rural 
development programme for the programming period 2007-2013 (‘the PNDR 
2007-2013’) 
– the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, with the following 
references to case-law: judgments of the Court of the Justice of 12 July 1957, 
Algera and Others v Common Assembly, C-7/56 and C-3/57 to C-7/57, 
EU:C:1957:7, paragraph 14; of 11 July 1991, Crispoltoni v Fattoria Autonoma 
Tabacchi di Città di Castello, C-368/89, EU:C:1991:307, paragraph 17; of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-116/24 
 
4  
14 September 2006, Elmeka, C-l81/04-C-l83/04, EU:C:2006:563, paragraphs 31 
and 32; and of 7 August 2018, Ministru kabinets, C-120/17, EU: C:2018:638, 
paragraphs 48 and 51, along with the judgments of the General Court of 11 July 
1996, Ortega Urretavizcaye v Commission, T-587/93, EU:T:1996:100, 
paragraph 57; of 16 October 1996, Efisol v Commission, T-336/94, 
EU:T:1996:148, paragraph 31; and of 23 February 2006, Karatzoglou v AER, 
T-471/04, EU:T:2006:66, paragraphs 33 and 34 
– the principle of legal certainty, with the following references to case-law: 
judgments of the Court of Justice of 15 December 1987, Ireland v Commission, 
C-325/85, EU:C:1987:546, paragraph 18; of 21 June 1988, Commission v Italy, 
C-257/86, EU:C:1988:324, paragraph 12; and of 13 March 1990, Commission v 
France, C30/89, EU:C:1990:114, paragraph 23 
– the principle according to which a decision of the European Commission 
produces legal effects until it is annulled, with the following references to case-
law: judgments of the Court of Justice of 22 October 1987, Foto-Frost v 
Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost, C-314/85, EU:C:1987:452; of 8 July 1999, Chemie 
Linz v Commission, C-245/92 P, EU:C: 1999:363; of 5 October 2004, 
Commission v Greece, C-475/01, EU:C:2004:585; of 12 February 2008, CELF 
and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, C-199/06, EU:C:2008:79; of 
14 June 2012, CIVAD, C-533/10, EU:C:2012:347; of 6 October 2015, Schrems, 
C-362/14, EU:C:2015:650; and of 3 July 2019, Eurobolt, C-644/17, 
EU:C:2019:555 
– the principle of foreseeability of administrative behaviour, with reference to the 
order of the President of the Court of Justice of 10 June 1988, Case C-152/88, 
Sofrimport v Commission, EU:C:1988:296, paragraph 22 
– the principle of State liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of 
Union law, with reference to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 March 
1996, Brasserie du pêcheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-46/93 and C-48/93, 
EU:C:1996:79, operative part 
– and, in relation to the second question referred, judgments of the Court of 
Justice of 17 November 2022, Avicarvil Farms, C-443/21, EU:C:2022:899, 
operative part, and of the General Court of 18 January 2023, Romania v 
Commission, T-33/21, EU:T:2023:5, paragraphs 85, 86, 91 to 94, 103, 110, 112 
and 113. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Ordinele ministrului agriculturii și dezvoltării rurale [MADR] nr. 149/2012, nr. 
6/2013, nr. 704/2014, nr. 43/2015 și nr. 826/2016 (Decrees of the Minister for 
Agriculture and Rural Development (‘MADR’) No 149/2012, No 6/2013, 
No 704/2014, No 43/2015 and No 826/2016) (‘the MADR Decrees’) approving 
the aid application model for Measure 215 – Animal Welfare Payments. The aid 
PORCELLINO GRASSO 
 
5 
amounts for sub-packages 3a and 5a, respectively EUR 4.80/livestock unit 
[LU]/year and EUR 16.80 LU/year – identical in the first four decrees – were 
reduced by Decree No 826/2016 to EUR 1.43/LU/year (for sub-package 3a) and 
to EUR 14.18/LU/year (for sub-package 5a). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The appellant, the company Porcellino Grasso SRL, has requested the annulment 
of the payment decision of 6 February 2018, issued for the period 1 January – 
31 December 2017, in the amount of 10 083 115.36 Romanian lei (RON), by the 
respondent APIA Vâlcea (‘contested payment decision’), the annulment of the 
document rejecting the complaint of 30 March 2018, issued by that respondent, 
and the annulment of the administrative act of 26 March 2018, issued by the 
respondent APIA, by which that party ruled in relation to the appellant’s 
complaint, failing to issue a favourable measure, as well as an order for the 
respondents to issue all necessary administrative acts and to carry out all 
necessary administrative operations to compensate for the damage amounting to 
RON 619 995.08 suffered by the appellant as a result of the issuance of the 
contested payment decision and the act rejecting its complaint. This amount 
represents the difference between the sum of RON 11 936 300, to which the 
appellant claims to be entitled, and the amounts awarded in the contested payment 
decision and the rectification decision of 21 April 2018 (RON 11 316 304.92). 
2 The appellant stated that, on 13 August 2012, it had lodged with APIA Vâlcea the 
initial aid application through which it assumed the obligation to ensure and 
maintain the welfare conditions of the pigs and to comply with the specific 
requirements of the sub-packages for which it had applied, for a minimum period 
of five years, in return for non-repayable financial support, in the amounts and 
under the conditions set out in the aid application, in the Applicant’s Guide, in the 
PNDR 2007-2013 and in MADR Decree No 149/2012. 
3 On 14 August 2015, the appellant filed a payment application with APIA Vâlcea 
in respect of the fourth year of the commitment, in accordance with the provisions 
of MADR Decree No 43/2015. In response, the respondent APIA Vâlcea 
informed the appellant that errors affecting commitments under Measure 215 had 
been found for all categories of eligible animals for sub-packages 3a and 5a. 
Accordingly, the abovementioned respondent advised that the non-repayable 
financial support related to sub-packages 3a and 5a was to be reduced. 
4 Subsequently, with the entry into force of MADR Decree No 826/2016, the 
reduction in the amount of non-repayable financial support relating to sub-
packages 3a and 5a under Measure 215 became definitive, and thus, after the entry 
into force of that decree, the new reduced amounts for the period from 16 July 
2015 to 31 December 2015 apply, depending on which payment decisions were 
subsequently issued for this period. The appellant lodged administrative appeals 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-116/24 
 
6  
against the payment decisions for the periods at issue, which are currently 
pending. 
5 Subsequently, on 31 January 2017, the appellant submitted the payment 
application in respect of the sixth year of commitment, corresponding to the 
period from 1 January to 31 December 2017, and on 6 February 2018, APIA 
Vâlcea issued the contested payment decision, calculating the amounts by 
reference to the reduced amounts of support, in accordance with MADR Decree 
No 826/2016. On 21 April 2018, APIA Vâlcea issued a rectification decision 
establishing a payment in favour of the appellant in the additional amount of 
RON 1 233 189.56. Consequently, the appellant is claiming payment of the 
difference of RON 619 995.08 resulting from the application of the rate of support 
for sub-package 3a, amounting to EUR 4.80/LU/year, and for sub-package 5a, 
amounting to EUR 16.80/LU/year. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 The appellant submits that the contested administrative acts infringe the 
provisions of the PNDR 2007-2013, approved by European Commission Decision 
C(2008) 3831 of 16 July 2008, as amended, which thus becomes binding on the 
Romanian State. 
7 The National Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 can only be revised if 
the deadlines and the procedure laid down in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1974/2006 are respected. 
8 The most recent version of the PNDR 2007-2013 dates from September 2015 and 
provides for the same amounts for the sums payable to beneficiaries for sub-
packages 3a and 5a under Measure 215 as in the previous versions, not reduced, 
and the preliminary findings of the European Court of Auditors were received by 
the Romanian authorities on 10 September 2015. 
9 The appellant points out that the rates of non-repayable financial support for 
Measure 215 were set by the Romanian State, in accordance with Article 40 of 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and Article 27(2) to (13) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1974/2006, and became compulsory for that State once the PNDR 2007-2013 
was approved by the Commission. 
10 The reduction in the amount of the support relating to sub-packages (3b) and (4b) 
is the result of an error by the respondent MADR in the calculation methodology 
and, therefore, the issuance of the contested administrative acts infringes the 
principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, since the 
appellant made commitments for a period of five years on the basis of the initial 
amount of the subsidies valid on the date on which the application for aid was 
submitted. 
PORCELLINO GRASSO 
 
7 
11 The appellant also alleges infringement of the provisions of the Applicant’s Guide 
relating to Measure 215, because, both at the time when it submitted its 
application for aid and at the time when it submitted its application for payment – 
including the application for the sixth year of commitment, in respect of which the 
contested payment decision was issued – the Applicant’s Guide for Measure 215 
(package (a) pigs) stated that the non-repayable aid granted to beneficiaries that 
had entered into commitments under sub-packages 3a and 5a was to be 
EUR 4.80/LU and EUR 16.80/LU respectively. 
12 The appellant also alleges infringement of the provisions of MADR Decree 
No 149/2012, as this decree is still in force today without having been amended or 
repealed. 
13 According to the appellant, which provides arguments to that effect drawn from 
case-law, the conduct of the respondent institutions – MADR, AFIR and APIA – 
is contrary to several principles enshrined in European Union law, and thus 
infringes the principles of the assumption of liability by the State, legal certainty, 
protection of legitimate expectations and foreseeability. The appellant argues that 
the abovementioned principles prevail over the interest of the State authorities in 
correcting calculation errors not attributable to it or any other beneficiary of 
Measure 215. 
14 The appellant also invokes the Commission’s implementing decision C(2012) 
3529 final, a decision which has not only not been annulled but, moreover, could 
no longer be amended on the date on which the calculation errors were 
discovered. However, the Romanian State has made payments other than those 
approved by that decision, although the purpose of the decision under discussion 
was to confer rights on the beneficiaries of Measure 215, for a duration of five 
years of their commitments. 
15 According to the appellant, there is a need to bring the case before the Court of 
Justice in light of the fact that there are inconsistencies in the grounds of some of 
the judgments rendered by the Courts of the Union. Indeed, the considerations 
expressed by the Court of Justice in Case C-443/21 contradict those of the General 
Court in Case T-33/21 as regards the applicability of the principles of protection 
of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, although the facts examined are 
identical in both cases. The appellant considers the General Court’s conclusion to 
be contrary to that of the Court of Justice. 
16 The respondents MADR, AFIR and APIA are relying, as grounds for the issuance 
of the contested administrative acts, on the results of the audit carried out by 
representatives of the European Court of Auditors for the 2015 financial year, 
which concluded with the identification of certain errors in the methodology for 
calculation of the compensatory payments for Measure 215, sub-packages 1a, 3a 
and 5a. The respondents submit that the issuance of the contested administrative 
acts was required because of the need to protect the financial interests of the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-116/24 
 
8  
Union, as provided for in Regulations (EC) No 1305/2013 and (EC) 
No 1306/2013. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the reference for a preliminary 
ruling 
17 The referring court states that the question raised in the present case is the 
interpretation of Articles 288, 291 and 297 TFEU, of the principle of European 
Union law according to which a decision of the European Commission has effect 
until it is annulled, and of Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 
and Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, in relation to the principle of 
the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty. 
18 At the same time, the questions raised also call for the interpretation of the 
abovementioned articles from the point of view of European Union case-law, 
more specifically in the light of the two decisions adopted by the Courts of the 
European Union that are closely connected with the pending case, namely the 
judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 November 2022 in Case C-443/21 
(Avicarvil Farms judgment) and the judgment of the General Court of 18 January 
2023 in Case T-33/21 (Romania v Commission judgment). 
19 In the Avicarvil farms judgment, the Court of Justice held that Article 40(3) of 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and Article 58(1) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1306/2013, read in conjunction with Article 310(5) TFEU, and the principles 
of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty must be interpreted 
as not precluding the national authorities involved in the implementation of a non-
repayable financial support measure from adopting, on account of a calculation 
error found by the Court of Auditors, acts ordering a reduction in the amount of 
financial aid granted under Romania’s Rural Development Programme within the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 
programming period 2007-2013, as approved by the European Commission, 
without waiting for the Commission to adopt a decision excluding the amounts 
resulting from that calculation error from EU financing. 
20 Following the Avicarvil Farms judgment, the national court referring the question 
for a preliminary ruling in that case, which is the same court as the referring court 
in the present case – the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Pitești Court of Appeal) – 
dismissed the action brought by the applicant SC Avicarvil Farms SRL. 
21 Shortly after the Avicarvil Farms judgment was given, the General Court 
delivered its Romania v Commission judgment, by which it ordered the annulment 
of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 
excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the 
Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and 
under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far 
as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by Romania under the EAFRD for the 
financial years 2017 to 2019, amounting to EUR 18 717 475.08. 
PORCELLINO GRASSO 
 
9 
22 However, even if, as the Court of Justice held in Case C-443/21, the principles of 
the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty must be interpreted 
as not precluding the national authorities from adopting, following a calculation 
error established by the European Court of Auditors, acts that impose a reduction 
in the amount of financial assistance granted by the PNDR, as approved by the 
European Commission, without awaiting the adoption by the European 
Commission of a decision excluding the sums resulting from that calculation error 
from European Union financing, that does not, however, exclude the possibility 
that other European Union rules might preclude a reduction, by the Romanian 
authorities, of the amount of financial assistance granted by the PNDR, so long as 
that amount was set by a decision of the European Commission that has not been 
revoked, has not been annulled and could no longer be amended at the date on 
which the calculation errors were detected. 
23 In conclusion, the referring court finds that it is necessary to refer the matter to the 
Court of Justice, because it considers that the questions raised in the present case 
are not identical to those that were the subject of the interpretation given by the 
Court of Justice in Case C-443/21 and that the correct application of European 
Union law, in the light of the two judgments analysed above, does not stand out so 
clearly as to leave no room for reasonable doubt.