Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:111
Date: 2023-02-16
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;General provisions;Agricultural structures;Wine
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-343/21 – 1 
Case C-343/21 
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:  
2 June 2021 
Referring court:  
Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
19 May 2021  
Appellant in the appeal in cassation:  
PV 
Respondent in the appeal in cassation:  
Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ 
(Deputy Executive Director of the State Agricultural Fund) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Challenge before the courts to an administrative decision establishing a public 
debt by which the reimbursement of part of the grant received by a farmer under a 
programme financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development is 
ordered on the ground that the beneficiary is unable to comply with the 
commitments given by him or her and to ensure the use of the whole area 
originally declared. If it can be assumed that reparcelling has taken place, does the 
reason for the abovementioned inability constitute a circumstance for which the 
beneficiary is not responsible and which entitles him or her to refuse to reimburse 
the funds received? 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-343/21 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Does the interpretation of Article 45(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 
laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 
permit the assumption that, in a case such as the present one, a holding has been 
‘reparcelled’ or has been the subject of ‘land-consolidation measures’ as a result 
of which the beneficiary is unable to comply with the commitments given by him 
or her? 
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the fact that a 
Member State has not taken the measures necessary to allow the beneficiary’s 
commitments to be adapted to the new situation of the holding provide 
justification for not requiring reimbursement of the funds in respect of the period 
in which the commitment was effective? 
3. If the first question is answered in the negative, how is Article 31 of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 to be interpreted in the light of 
the facts established in the main proceedings and what is the nature of the time 
limit under Article 75(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 
30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009? 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for 
rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
(EAFRD), in particular Article 36(a)(iv) 
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), in particular recital 37 and Article 45(4) 
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, in particular Article 31 
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, in particular Article 75 
ZAMESTNIK IZPALNITELEN DIREKTOR NA DARZHAVEN FOND ‘ZEMEDELIE’  
 
3 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down 
detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, 
as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance 
in respect of rural development support measures, in particular Articles 5, 6 and 
18 
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, in particular Article 47(3) and (4) 
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, in 
particular Articles 43 and 44 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 807/2014 of 11 March 2014 
supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund 
for Rural Development (EAFRD) and introducing transitional provisions, in 
particular Article 19 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Danachno-osiguritelen protsesualen kodeks (Tax and Social Security Procedure 
Code), in particular Article 162(1) and points 8 and 9 of Article 162(2) 
Zakon za podpomagane na zemedelskite proizvoditeli (Law on support for 
farmers), in particular Article 1, Article 20(1), (2) and (4), Article 27(3), (5) and 
(7), and point 1 of Paragraph 1 of the Dopalnitelni razporedbi (Additional 
provisions) for that law 
Zakon za sobstvenostta i polzvaneto na zemedelskite zemi (Law on ownership and 
use of agricultural land; ‘the ZSPZZ’), Article 37c 
Naredba Nº 11 ot 6.04.2009 za usloviata i reda za prilagane na myarka 214 
‘Agroekologichni plashtania’ ot Programata za razvitie na selskite rayoni za 
perioda 2007 – 2013 (Ordinance No 11 of 6 April 2009 on the conditions and 
detailed arrangements for the application of measure 214 ‘Agri-environmental 
payments’ of the Rural Development Programme for the period 2007-2013), 
issued by the Ministar na zemedelieto i hranite (Minister for Agriculture and 
Food), in particular Articles 18 and 24, and point 4 of Paragraph 1 and 
Paragraph 2 of the dopalnitelni razporedbi (Additional provisions) 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-343/21 
 
4  
Naredba za izmenenie i dopalnenie na Naredba Nº11 ot 2009 za usloviata i reda za 
prilagane na myarka 214 ‘Agroekologichni plashtania’ ot Programata za razvitie 
na selskite rayoni za perioda 2007 – 2013 (Ordinance amending and 
supplementing Ordinance No 11 of 2009 on the conditions and detailed 
arrangements for the application of measure 214 ‘Agri-environmental payments’ 
of the Rural Development Programme for the period 2007-2013 (published in 
Darzhaven vestnik [State Gazette; ‘DV’] No 29 of 2009, as amended and 
supplemented), Paragraph 5 of the prehodni i zaklyuchitelni razporedbi 
(transitional and final provisions) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The appellant in cassation is a farmer who submitted an aid application under 
measure 214 ‘Agri-environmental payments’ of the 2007-2013 Rural 
Development Programme in 2013. 
2 The application was approved and the appellant in cassation entered into a five-
year agri-environmental commitment under that measure. One of the conditions 
that the appellant in cassation undertook to comply with was to carry out the 
activities specified in the application on the same agricultural area for five 
consecutive years. That area consists of 857 ha of agricultural land and is used by 
PV on the basis of agreements from 2012. Under Bulgarian law (Article 37c of the 
ZSPZZ), the conclusion of such agreements is a complex factual matter. In short, 
they are concluded for each financial year between the owners and/or the users of 
agricultural land situated nearby and regulate the use of the land not declared for 
cultivation in the geographical area of land in question. The agreements establish 
land groupings for the use of which aid may be claimed. The agreement on the 
establishment of land groupings or the subdivision thereof is considered to be the 
legal basis for aid for the farmers who use them. The appellant in cassation 
participates, with land leased by him, in the land groupings established in that 
manner. Agreements involving the appellant in cassation were also concluded for 
the following three financial years. 
3 During those years, all the mandatory administrative controls and on-the-spot 
checks were carried out on the holding of the appellant in cassation, and amounts 
totalling 1 063 317.54 leva (BGN) were paid pursuant to his payment applications 
under measure 214 ‘Agri-environmental payments’. 
4 For the 2016/2017 financial year, no agreement was reached on the use of all the 
land declared by PV. On 29 May 2017, almost ten months after he had become 
aware that he would not be entitled to use, in the 2016/2017 financial year, part of 
the land with which he had participated in the measure, and eight months after his 
entitlement to use it had ceased (that is to say, eight months after the expiry of the 
last agreement), the appellant in cassation gave notification of the termination of 
his agri-environmental commitment by letter sent to the territorial division of the 
Bulgarian paying agency (Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ in Targovishte). By letter 
ZAMESTNIK IZPALNITELEN DIREKTOR NA DARZHAVEN FOND ‘ZEMEDELIE’  
 
5 
of 6 August 2018, which constitutes an individual administrative act, the appellant 
in cassation was notified of the termination of his agri-environmental commitment 
under the measure. The administrative decision terminating the multiannual 
commitment under the measure owing to failure to comply with the applicable 
conditions was served on 17 August 2018. It was not contested by the appellant in 
cassation and became final fourteen days after it had been served. 
5 As a result, the zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ 
(Deputy Executive Director of the State Agricultural Fund) initiated proceedings 
for the issuance of an administrative decision establishing a public debt (Akt za 
Ustanovyavane na Publichno Darzhavno Vsemane; the ‘AUPDV’ or 
‘administrative decision’), claiming from the appellant in cassation reimbursement 
of 20% of the total amount disbursed (BGN 1 063 317.54), that is to say, 
BGN 212 663.51. 
6 The AUPDV that had been issued established a public debt in the amount of 
BGN 212 663.51, representing 20% of the subsidy paid under the respective 
measure for the 2013-2016 campaigns, together with statutory interest for the 
period running from [the expiry of] the specified time limit for reimbursement 
(50 days from the date of notification) to the date of either payment by the 
beneficiary or set-off by the paying agency. 
7 The administrative court of first instance found that the aid granted had been 
lawfully reduced and that there was no force majeure within the meaning of 
Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in the present case. That court therefore 
dismissed PV’s action against the AUPDV. 
8 PV challenged the judgment delivered at first instance in cassation proceedings 
brought before the referring court, which takes the view that the resolution of the 
dispute requires an interpretation of EU law. For that reason, the Varhoven 
administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court; ‘the VAS’) makes the 
present request for a preliminary ruling. 
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
9 In the administrative proceedings in which the AUPDV at issue was challenged, 
the appellant in cassation argues, in essence, that he had put the agricultural land 
declared by him to use for four years on the basis of an agreement pursuant to 
Article 37c of the ZSPZZ. He submits that, due to changes in the legislation in 
October 2015, many farmers withdrew from their agri-environmental 
commitments in 2015 and some of the parties to the previous agreements under 
Article 37c of the ZSPZZ opted not to conclude a new agreement for the 
2016/2017 financial year. The appellant in cassation takes the view that these are 
all circumstances which he could not have foreseen at the time when he applied 
for the aid. He submits that they should therefore be regarded as constituting force 
majeure within the meaning of the national legislation. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-343/21 
 
6  
10 The administrative authority cites a number of provisions of both national and EU 
law and does not accept the objections raised by PV. 
11 The court of first instance finds that there is no force majeure within the meaning 
of Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. That court justified that finding on 
the ground that the beneficiary could not have had a legitimate expectation that 
the owners of agricultural land with whom he had concluded agreements under 
Article 37c of the ZSPZZ would renew those agreements after their one-year term 
had expired. The fact that the individuals had refused to conclude such agreements 
for the 2016/2017 financial year did not constitute a circumstance that was 
unforeseeable at the time when the commitment was given. It stated that, by 
participating in the programme with land belonging to others, the appellant in 
cassation exposed himself to the risk of not being able to comply with his agri-
environmental commitment, and that risk materialised at the end of the five-year 
period. 
12 That court takes the view that, even if force majeure or exceptional circumstances 
were to be assumed, the appellant in cassation did not comply with the strict time 
limit for notifying the administrative authority of those circumstances. Under 
national law, agreements pursuant to Article 37c of the ZSPZZ must be concluded 
by 30 August at the latest of a given year. In addition, the applicant was required 
to notify the paying agency by 9 September 2016 at the latest that there was a 
circumstance which objectively prevented him from complying with his 
commitment given for the 2016/2017 financial year. However, such notification 
did not take place until 29 May 2017. 
13 In the cassation proceedings, PV submits that the court of first instance wrongly 
held that there was no force majeure or exceptional circumstances in the present 
case which would serve as justification for releasing him from the obligation to 
reimburse part of the payments received under the measure in question. 
Furthermore, that court erred in finding that the time limit for notification had not 
been complied with and that that time limit constitutes a strict time limit. 
14 The appellant in cassation submits that the Ordinance amending and 
supplementing Ordinance No 11 of 6 April 2009 (in force since 20 October 2015) 
imposed new conditions under Measure 214 that were more stringent and more 
difficult to fulfil, and forced some of the beneficiaries of the measure to opt not to 
participate in the voluntary agreements under Article 37c of the ZSPZZ. He 
claims that, at the same time, the associated amendment to the ZSPZZ did not 
serve to regularise the situation. According to the appellant in cassation, these are 
exceptional circumstances which release him from the obligation to reimburse part 
of the grant received. In addition, the appellant in cassation also relies on 
Article 45(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, which corresponds to 
Article 47(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013. 
15 The respondent in cassation considers that the judgment at first instance is correct. 
ZAMESTNIK IZPALNITELEN DIREKTOR NA DARZHAVEN FOND ‘ZEMEDELIE’  
 
7 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
16 Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 provides that: Where a beneficiary is 
unable to continue to comply with commitments given because the holding is 
reparcelled or is the subject of public land-consolidation measures or of land-
consolidation measures approved by the competent public authorities, Member 
States shall take the measures necessary to allow the commitments to be adapted 
to the new situation of the holding. If such adaptation proves impossible, the 
commitment shall expire and reimbursement shall not be required in respect of the 
period during which the commitment was effective. 
17 The referring court takes the view that the provision governs three cases: the 
holding is reparcelled or is the subject of public land-consolidation measures or of 
land-consolidation measures approved by the competent public authorities. 
18 It considers that, according to a grammatical interpretation of the phrase ‘the 
holding is reparcelled’ (taking into account the French version of the provision – 
‘son exploitation fait l’objet d’un remembrement’), it can be assumed that the first 
case concerns a case such as that in the present proceedings. This follows, first, 
from the schematic position of Article 45(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 – 
namely after the provisions on the reinforcement of the agri-environmental 
obligation due to an increase in the area of the holding – which suggests that the 
provision in question concerns cases in which there is a reduction in the area of 
the holding due to the reparcelling of some of its individual parts between the 
beneficiary and other persons (as in the present case). Moreover, the provision in 
question does not state any reasons for the reparcelling, and it can be inferred 
from this that the reason is irrelevant and that what matters, above all, is an 
objective outcome, irrespective of the fact that the beneficiary had previously 
assumed that that outcome was possible. 
19 However, the second and third cases governed by Article 45(4) of Regulation 
(EC) No 1974/2006 concern situations in which the beneficiary, irrespective of his 
or her will, is subject to administrative measures as a result of which he or she is 
not able to comply with the commitments given by him or her. 
20 If it were assumed that the present case could be subsumed under one of the cases 
governed by Article 45(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, the legal 
consequences of the termination of the agri-environmental commitment would not 
include an obligation to reimburse all or part of the aid received where the 
commitments are not adapted to the new situation of the holding, even though the 
Member State concerned has taken the necessary measures to that effect. 
21 It follows that the provision in question confers rights on individuals, who could 
rely directly on it to establish that there is no claim against them which is the 
subject of the AUPDV at issue. On the other hand, if the present case is to be 
subsumed under one of the cases of the provision in question, it would be 
necessary to determine whether the fact that Bulgaria did not take the necessary 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-343/21 
 
8  
measures to adapt the beneficiary’s commitments to the new situation of the 
holding serves as justification for not requiring reimbursement of the funds in 
respect of the period during which the commitment was effective. 
22 In the event that the first question referred is answered in the negative, the 
referring court then asks how Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is to be 
interpreted in the light of the present case. 
23 The Supreme Administrative Court states that it requires interpretative guidance in 
order to give primacy of application to a provision of EU law. On the one hand, 
the beneficiary was aware, as the court of first instance also found, that the 
agreements on the use of land belonging to others under Article 37c of the ZSPZZ 
were each concluded for a period of one year and that the owners and users of part 
of the land for which he received aid might refuse to conclude an agreement for 
each of the following financial years. On the other hand, the appellant in cassation 
submits that the Ordinance amending and supplementing Ordinance No 11 of 
6 April 2009 (in force since 20 October 2015) imposed new more stringent 
conditions under Measure 214, which forced some of the beneficiaries of the 
measure to opt not to participate in voluntary agreements under Article 37c of the 
ZSPZZ. The VAS confirms that the beneficiary would not have been able to rely 
on the enacted amendment to the ZSPZZ. 
24 The referring court, ruling at final instance, finds that the question as to how 
Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is to be interpreted, including with 
regard to the nature of the time limit for notification under Article 75(2) of 
Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, is relevant to the resolution of the dispute. 
25 The doubts as to the meaning of the provisions of EU law in their direct 
application serve as justification for a request for their interpretation by the Court 
of Justice of the European Union, which has jurisdiction in that regard.