Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:829
Date: 2025-10-23
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-267/24 – 1 
Case C-267/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling under Article 98(1) of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
16 April 2024 
Referring court:  
Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
4 April 2024 
Applicant:  
‘Kanevi Komers DS’ EOOD 
Defendant:  
Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action against a decision whereby support for farmers applied for by the applicant 
under area-related direct payment schemes was awarded at a reduced rate and 
penalties were imposed against the applicant because it was found after a check 
that the areas declared did not correspond to the areas determined 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Is Article 15 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 
11 March 2014 directly applicable by the Member States, or does the application 
thereof require the adoption of domestic legal provisions? 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-267/24 
 
2  
2. Must Article 15 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 
11 March 2014 be regarded as providing that, for the proper notification of the 
competent authority by the beneficiary that the aid application or payment claim is 
incorrect or has become incorrect since it was lodged, it suffices that the 
information has been submitted in writing and received by the competent 
authority, without submission through a dedicated platform being provided for? 
3. Must the restrictions introduced in Article 15 of Commission Delegated 
Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 to the rights of the beneficiary to 
inform, without incurring a penalty, the competent authority that the aid 
application or payment claim is incorrect or has become incorrect since it was 
lodged, that is to say, that ‘the beneficiary has not been informed of the competent 
authority’s intention to carry out an on-the-spot check’ and ‘the authority has [not] 
already informed the beneficiary of any non-compliances in the aid application or 
payment claim’, be interpreted as requiring evidence of the competent authority 
having informed the beneficiary of its intention to carry out a check or of any non-
compliance in the aid application or payment claim? In that regard, where the 
competent authority did not inform the beneficiary of its intention to carry out an 
on-the-spot check or of any non-compliance in the aid application or payment 
claim, is the beneficiary authorised under that provision of the regulation to 
withdraw the application or claim before being informed by the administrative 
authority, where a check has already been carried out and non-compliance has 
been found by that authority? 
[4]. Do recital 17 and Article 15 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 allow a national rule whereby ‘the support 
applicant cannot withdraw the submitted application or claim in its entirety or in 
respect of one or more schemes … therein if: 1. he or she has been informed of 
overlaps found therein in terms of the parcels with identified overlaps; 2. he or she 
has been informed that he or she has been selected for an on-the-spot check; 3. he 
or she has been subjected to an on-the-spot check and has been informed of non-
compliances found in terms of the areas and/or animals for which those have been 
found’ as well as practice on the part of the national authority with regard to on-
the-spot checks (whereby the beneficiary is not informed of the check or of its 
outcome) and practice on the part of the national authority which requires 
beneficiaries to give written notice of withdrawal through a dedicated system, for 
the sole purpose of easier processing of applications? 
[5]. Is the third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union (OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 389) applicable in the main 
proceedings to the penalty imposed on the farmer under Article 19а of 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 
(repealed by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1172 of 4 May 2022 
supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system in the 
common agricultural policy and the application and calculation of administrative 
penalties for conditionality (OJ L 183/12, 8.7.2021) in accordance with its 
KANEVI KOMERS DS 
 
3 
recital 16, which reads, ‘In the interest of clarity and legal certainty, Delegated 
Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 should be repealed. However, that Regulation 
should continue to apply to aid applications for direct payments lodged before 
1 January 2023, to payment claims made in relation to support measures 
implemented under Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 and to the control system and 
administrative penalties as regards rules on cross-compliance.’), which was 
applicable in the 2019 marketing year and at the time the sanction was imposed by 
means of the letter of notification dated 5 December 2022 on the approval and 
payment of financial support paid under schemes and measures for area-related 
direct payments in the 2019 marketing year, file number […] 05.12.2022, given 
that, at the time of examination of the case by the court, Commission Delegated 
Regulation (EU) No 40/2014 of 11 March 2014 in the version applicable from 
1 January 2023 (available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0640) does not contain Article 19a? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 
supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and 
conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties 
applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross-compliance, 
recital 17 and Articles 15, 18, 19 and 19a 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1172 of 4 May 2022 supplementing 
Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council with 
regard to the integrated administration and control system under the common 
agricultural policy and the application and calculation of administrative penalties 
for conditionality, recital 16 and Article 13 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 49(1) 
Judgment of 2 October 2014, Vlaams Gewest, С-525/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2254 
Judgment of 29 April 2021, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură – 
Centrul Judeţean Tulcea, C-294/19 and C-304/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:340 
Judgment of 7 April 2022, SC Avio Lucos SRL, C-116/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:273 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Zakon za podpomagane na zemedelskite proizvoditeli (Law on Support for 
Farmers; ‘the ZPZP’), Articles 41 and 43 
Naredba No 5 ot 27.02.2009 za usloviata i reda za podavane na zayavlenia po 
shemi i merki za direktni plashtania (Regulation No 5 of 27 February 2009 on the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-267/24 
 
4  
conditions and procedure for submitting applications under direct payment 
schemes and measures), Articles 1, 2, 4, 11, 12 and 14 thereof 
Under Article 14(1) of that regulation, the support applicant may withdraw the 
application or claim in its entirety or in respect of one or more schemes or 
measures therein up to the date of payment under the relevant scheme or measure. 
The withdrawal is made by written application to the relevant Oblastna direktsia 
na Darhzaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ (Provincial Directorate of the State Agricultural 
Fund, Bulgaria). 
Article 14(6) of the regulation reads as follows: ‘The support applicant cannot 
withdraw the submitted application or claim in its entirety or in respect of one or 
more schemes or measures therein if: 1. he or she has been informed of overlaps 
found therein in terms of the parcels with identified overlaps; 
2. he or she has been informed that he or she has been selected for an on-the-spot 
check; 
3. he or she has been subjected to an on-the-spot check and has been informed of 
non-compliances found in terms of the areas and/or animals for which those have 
been found.’ 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant submitted an application for support under several schemes and 
measures for area-related direct payments for the 2019 marketing year. The 
support funds are provided by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 
(EAGF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and 
the state budget of the Republic of Bulgaria. 
2 Administrative checks and an on-the-spot check were carried out following the 
application. According to the information provided by the applicant in the action 
brought before the referring court, the State Agricultural Fund carried out a check 
of the areas declared in the application in the period from 8 to 28 August 2019. 
The areas declared by the company were found to be fully eligible under several 
schemes during that check. On request, the national court received information 
that a check had been carried out between 22 and 25 October 2019, there being no 
indication that the beneficiary was notified of the results of the check or informed 
that a check would be carried out. Neither the number nor the date of the order to 
carry out the check was communicated. 
3 By means of a notification dated 4 November 2019, registered under file reference 
02-250-2600/3865 at the office of the Provincial Directorate of the State 
Agricultural Fund – Targovishte, the applicant company withdrew the support 
application for areas enumerated in detail. 
KANEVI KOMERS DS 
 
5 
4 In that context, the Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor (Deputy Executive Director) of 
the State Agricultural Fund issued the letter of notification dated 5 December 
2022 with individual registration number 662032, file reference 01-2600/6992, on 
the approval and payment of financial support under the schemes and measures 
for area-related direct payments in response to application number 
25/240419/09561 from the applicant for the 2019 marketing year. 
5 The letter of notification awarded financial support to the applicant company, but 
the amounts claimed by it were reduced as follows (mainly because of the 
identified overdeclaration of areas): 
by 13 631.34 leva (BGN) for sub-measure 13.1 – compensation payment in 
mountain areas; by BGN 2 275.96 for sub-measure 13.2 – compensation payment 
for other areas facing significant natural constraints; by BGN 46 475.43 under the 
single area payment scheme; by BGN 58.98 under the redistributive payment 
scheme; by BGN 22 779.74 under the coupled support scheme for fruit (main 
group); by BGN 20 082.53 under the coupled support scheme for fruit (plums and 
table grapes); by BGN 17 632.87 under the payment scheme for agricultural 
practices beneficial for the climate and the environment – green direct payment 
scheme; by BGN 1 436.87 under the coupled support scheme for vegetables 
(tomatoes, cucumbers, gherkins and aubergines); by BGN 12 801.05 under the 
coupled support scheme for vegetables (sweet peppers) and BGN 1 556.39 under 
the coupled support scheme for vegetables (potatoes, onions and garlic). 
Pursuant to Articles 19 and 19a of Regulation No 640/2014, penalties, to be 
recovered from future payments, were applied as follows: 
under the single area payment scheme: BGN 22 712.35; under sub-measure 13.1 – 
compensation payment in mountain areas: BGN 6 920.23; under sub-measure 
13.2 – compensation payment for other areas facing significant natural 
constraints: BGN 1 533.15; under the coupled support scheme for fruit (main 
group): BGN 22 779.74. 
6 With regard to the withdrawal of parcels, the defendant stated before the referring 
court that, in its view, the applicant’s assertion that a withdrawal of areas had been 
effected by means of the letter of notification of 4 November 2019, file reference 
02-250-2600/3865, was unfounded. A withdrawal, it argued, is only valid if it is 
made through the integrated administration and control system (IACS) in a 
manner and procedure which allows a trace be left in relation to the processing of 
the application. It explained that a function is integrated into the IACS which, 
when an application for full or partial withdrawal of areas is submitted, conducts 
an admissibility check with a view to confirming or disallowing withdrawal. Any 
other type of withdrawal, which does not allow an objective possibility for the 
admissibility of the withdrawal to be assessed, it added, is not entered in the file 
documenting the application procedure and is not treated as an application for 
withdrawal. In this context, the managing director of the applicant company was 
informed, in a letter dated 18 December 2019, reference 02-2600/6724#1, that he 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-267/24 
 
6  
was not permitted to effect the withdrawal of the parcels in a manner contrary to 
the requirements of Article 14(6) of Regulation No 5 of 27 February 2009. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 ‘Kanevi Komers DS’ EOOD states that Regulation 2021/2115 does not apply, 
since it relates to the period from 2023 to 2027. It argues that the provisions of 
Regulation No 1306/2013 and Regulation No 640/2014 are applicable to the 
dispute in the main proceedings. The applicant submits that it informed the 
administrative authority of the withdrawal of the declared areas in due time and 
that it complied with the written form prescribed by Article 15 of Regulation 
No 640/2014. The order for the on-the-spot check, it states, does not list any 
parcels, which means that the administrative authority has no proof that the on-
the-spot check was ordered for those precise areas which were withdrawn. Under 
Article 15 of Regulation No 640/2014, it argues, the administrative penalties 
provided for in that chapter do not apply with regard to the part of the aid 
application or payment claim as to which the beneficiary informs the competent 
authority in writing that the aid application or payment claim is incorrect or has 
become incorrect since it was lodged, provided that the beneficiary has not been 
informed of the competent authority’s intention to carry out an on-the-spot check 
and that the authority has not already informed the beneficiary of any non-
compliances in the aid application or payment claim. The applicant submits that 
the information given by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 15(1) of the 
regulation has the effect that the aid application or payment claim is adjusted to 
the actual situation. According to the applicant, because of the direct application 
of the provision of EU law, the situations in which withdrawal is not permissible 
which are described in Article 14(6) of national Regulation No 5 likewise amount 
to two cases, namely the one described in point 1, in which the applicant, before 
submitting the application for withdrawal, has been informed of non-compliances 
found in his or her application, and the second case – a synthesis of the situations 
described in points 2 and 3 – in which the applicant has been informed, before 
submitting his or her application for withdrawal, that he or she has been selected 
for an on-the-spot check, which has been carried out and during which non-
compliances have been found. However, the applicant asserts that neither of the 
two impediments to withdrawal apply in the present case. 
8 The Deputy Executive Director of the State Agricultural Fund states that a 
reference for a preliminary ruling is not necessary, arguing that there is no 
contradiction between national law and EU law. The penalty provision from 
Article 19a of Regulation No 640/2014 was correctly applied, in his view, as the 
administrative act was adopted before 1 January 2023. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
The dispute concerns the validity of the procedure for the withdrawal of the 
parcels followed by the applicant company and, in particular, whether the 
KANEVI KOMERS DS 
 
7 
company was entitled to withdraw the parcels for which it had applied for support, 
not through the IACS but in the manner described in Article 15 of Delegated 
Regulation No 640/2014 and Article 14 of national Regulation No 5 of 
27 February 2009, that is to say by means of a written application addressed to the 
Provincial Directorate of the State Agricultural Fund, given that the applicant had 
not been informed of the competent authority’s intention to carry out an on-the-
spot check or of any non-compliance in the aid application or payment claim. 
The dispute over the applicability of the national provision must be examined in 
the light of recital 17 and Articles 15 and 19a of Delegated Regulation 
No 640/2014, due consideration being given to the fact that that regulation has 
been repealed by Delegated Regulation 2022/1172, and to the third sentence of 
Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
There is no interpretation of these contentious issues by the Court of Justice of the 
European Union of which the national court could avail itself. 
In formulating the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court 
notes that Article 15 of Regulation No 640/2014 provides as follows: ‘The 
administrative penalties provided for in this Chapter shall not apply with regard to 
the part of the aid application or payment claim as to which the beneficiary 
informs the competent authority in writing that the aid application or payment 
claim is incorrect or has become incorrect since it was lodged, provided that the 
beneficiary has not been informed of the competent authority’s intention to carry 
out an on-the-spot check and that the authority has not already informed the 
beneficiary of any non-compliances in the aid application or payment claim.’ 
With regard to the dispute in the main proceedings, the following questions arise 
regarding the application of the abovementioned provision: 
First, how is the part of the provision worded ‘the beneficiary informs the 
competent authority in writing that the aid application or payment claim is 
incorrect or has become incorrect since it was lodged’ to be understood, and does 
it follow from its interpretation that it suffices for compliance with that provision 
that the information has been submitted in writing and received by the competent 
authority, or must the information be provided (as in the national practice) in a 
specific form and through a specific platform, even if such requirements are not 
set out in the regulation and there is no express provision assigning competence to 
Member States to lay down supplementary rules for the application of the 
regulation? 
Second, how should one interpret the part of the provision worded ‘provided that 
the beneficiary has not been informed of the competent authority’s intention to 
carry out an on-the-spot check and that the authority has not already informed the 
beneficiary of any non-compliances in the aid application or payment claim’, 
which requires an interpretation to answer the following questions: until what 
date, in relation to the submission of the beneficiary’s request for the withdrawal 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-267/24 
 
8  
of areas, must the negative conditions ‘provided that the beneficiary has not been 
informed of the competent authority’s intention to carry out an on-the-spot check 
and that the authority has not already informed the beneficiary of any non-
compliances in the aid application or payment claim’ be satisfied, and, given the 
wording of the cited provision, should it be interpreted as meaning that, if the 
beneficiary has not been informed that the authority intends to carry out a check 
and/or has not been informed of any non-compliance in its application or claim, 
the beneficiary is entitled to inform the competent authority in writing that the aid 
application or payment claim is incorrect or has become incorrect since it was 
lodged until such time as it is informed that the negative conditions for the 
submission of that information are present? 
Article 19а of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 provides for the penalties 
imposed on the company which is the applicant in the main proceedings. 
The referring court notes that Article 19a, with the wording set out above, is 
contained in the version of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 accessed on 
3 April 2024 at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02014R0640-20210903.  
Article 19a is absent from the subsequent version of Delegated Regulation 
No 640/2014, accessed on 3 April 2024 at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0640. 
The referring court notes that recital 16 of Delegated Regulation 2022/1172 reads, 
‘In the interest of clarity and legal certainty, Delegated Regulation (EU) 
No 640/2014 should be repealed. However, that regulation should continue to 
apply to aid applications for direct payments lodged before 1 January 2023, to 
payment claims made in relation to support measures implemented under 
Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 and to the control system and administrative 
penalties as regards rules on cross-compliance.’ Article 13 (‘Repeal’) reads as 
follows: ‘Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 is repealed with effect from 
1 January 2023. However, it shall continue to apply to: (a) aid applications for 
direct payments lodged before 1 January 2023; (b) payment claims made in 
relation to support measures implemented under Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013; 
(c) the control system and administrative penalties as regards rules on cross-
compliance.’ 
The question arises as to the validity of the expiry of Article 19a of Delegated 
Regulation No 640/2014 in its last version (the version applicable from 1 January 
2023 and at the time of examination of the case). 
If the question concerning the expiry of the penalty provision of Article 19a in the 
last version of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 is answered in the affirmative, 
and given that the administrative act imposing the penalty under that legal basis – 
now no longer extant –was adopted on 5 December 2022, that is to say, before the 
entry into force of the last version of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014, but was 
KANEVI KOMERS DS 
 
9 
then challenged, and that the referring court is to decide on the legality of the 
administrative act after the expiry of Article 19a of the regulation, the question 
arises as to the applicability of the third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union to the penalty applied. 
Having regard to the facts of the main proceedings, EU law, national law and legal 
doctrine, the referring court considers that a reference for a preliminary ruling to 
the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU is necessary 
for it to fulfil its obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law.