Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:56
Date: 2024-01-18
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Agricultural structures
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-656/22 – 1 
Case C-656/22 
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: 
19 October 2022 
Referring court 
Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 September 2022 
Appellant in cassation: 
Askos Properties EOOD 
Respondent in cassation: 
Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
An appeal in cassation against the court judgment confirming a decision 
establishing a public State claim for 18 831.40 Bulgarian lev (BGN) against a 
company which had benefited from financial support to keep land (less-favoured 
areas) in good condition, but which, subsequently, because of a change to the 
relevant national legislation, no longer fulfilled the conditions of eligibility for 
that support. Notwithstanding that it was objectively impossible for it to continue 
to comply with its commitment, the company was asked to reimburse the aid 
already granted on the ground that it had failed to fulfil its obligations. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Request under Article 267 TFEU for an interpretation of Article 2(2)(f) of 
Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 47(3)of Regulation No 1305/2013 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-656/22 
 
2   
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
[The referring court asks] how to interpret Article 2(2)(f) 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 165/94, 
(EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, 
according to which, for the purposes of the financing, management and 
monitoring of the CAP, ‘force majeure’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ may, in 
particular, be recognised in the case of the expropriation of all or a large part of 
the holding if that expropriation could not have been anticipated on the day of 
lodging the application, and, in particular, whether force majeure or exceptional 
circumstances in the form of an expropriation of all or a large part of the holding 
is present in the case where a contract for the use of municipal agricultural land 
(pastures, grassland and meadows) concluded between a municipal administration 
and a beneficiary under Measure 211, entitled ‘Payments to farmers in mountain 
areas facing natural handicaps’, of the Rural Development Programme for the 
period 2007-2013 is terminated in implementation of a change to the Bulgarian 
legislation which could not have been anticipated by the beneficiary on the day of 
lodging the application. 
2. Is the situation provided for in Article 47(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 present in the case where an agreement for the lease of municipal 
land to the beneficiary under Measure [211], entitled ‘Payments to farmers in 
mountain areas facing natural handicaps’, is terminated as a result of a change to 
national legislation amending and supplementing the Law on the Ownership and 
Use of Agricultural Land so as to make the possession of a livestock holding and 
the declaration by the farmer of a certain number of livestock to the Bulgarian 
Food Safety Authority new conditions for the renting or leasing of municipal land, 
in accordance with Article [37i](4) of the Law on the Ownership and Use of 
Agricultural Land, and that change could not have been anticipated either by the 
beneficiary or by the administrative authority on the day on which the application 
was lodged? 
European Union law and case-law 
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, recital 36, Article 47(3) and (4) 
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 
ASKOS PROPERTIES 
 
3 
agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) 
No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) 
No 485/2008, recital 5, Article 2(1)(d) and (2), Articles 58 and 63, Article 64(2) 
and (4), Article 77(2)(a) 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 October 2013, Confédération paysanne, 
C-298/12, EU:C:2013:630 
Opinion of Advocate General L. Medina of 15 September 2022 in Case C-343/21, 
EU:C:2022:696 
National legislation 
Danachno-osiguritelen protsesualen kodeks (Code of Procedure in Tax and Social 
Insurance Matters), Article 162(1) and (2), point 8. 
Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks (Code of Administrative Procedure), 
Article 59(1) and (2) 
Zakon za obshtinskata sobstvenost (Law on Municipal Property), Article 14(7), 
Article 15(3) 
Zakon za podpomagane na zemedelskite proizvoditeli (Law on Support for the 
Owners of Agricultural Holdings), Article 1, points 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, 
Article 20a(1), (2), (5) and (6), Article 27(2) to (7) 
Zakon za sobstvenostta i polzvaneto na zemedelskite zemi (Law on the Ownership 
and Use of Agricultural Land, ‘the ZSPZZ’), Article 37i(1) and (4) 
Zakon za izmenenie i dopalnenie na ZSPZZ (Law Amending and Supplementing 
the ZSPZZ, DV [Official Gazette] No 61 of 2015), Paragraph 15(1) to (3) of the 
Transitional and Final Provisions 
Naredba N° 11 ot 3 april 2008g. za usloviyata i reda za prilagane na myarka 211 
„Plashtaniya na zemedelski stopani za prirodni ogranicheniya v planinskite 
rayoni“ i myarka 212 „Plashtaniya na zemedelski stopani v rayoni s 
ogranicheniya, razlichni ot planinskite rayoni“ ot Programata za razvitie na 
selskite rayoni za perioda 2007g. – 2013g. (Regulation No 11 of 3 April 2008 
laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Measure 211, entitled 
‘Payments to farmers in mountain areas facing natural handicaps’, and Measure 
212, entitled ‘Payments to farmers in non-mountain areas facing natural 
handicaps’, of the Rural Development Programme for the period 2007-2013, 
‘Regulation No 11’), Article 1(1), (2) and (4), Articles 2 and 3, Article 4(1), 
points 1 to 3, Article 12, points 1 and 2, Article 14(1) and (2), Article 15 and 
Paragraph 1, point 3(a) to (d), of the Additional Provisions 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-656/22 
 
4   
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure 
1 On 1 August 2012, Askos Properties EOOD (‘Askos’) concluded with the 
municipality of Sungurlare an agreement for the lease of 150.155 hectares of 
municipal agricultural land (pastures, grassland and meadows. The term of that 
agreement was five years. 
2 On 24 October 2012, Askos concluded with the municipality of Sredets an 
agreement for the lease of 1208.21 hectares of municipal agricultural land 
(pastures, grassland and meadows). The term of that agreement was five years. 
3 Askos declared those sites to the Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ (State Agricultural 
Fund, ‘DFZ’) and registered with it an application for aid under Measure 211, 
entitled ‘Payments to farmers for mountain areas facing natural handicaps’, of the 
Rural Development Programme for the period 2007-2013. In so doing, Askos 
gave a commitment to DFZ to keep the leased municipal agricultural areas in 
good agricultural and environmental condition for a period of five years under the 
aforementioned measure. 
4 Askos submitted annual aid applications to the DFZ. For the first year of the 
commitment (2013), DFZ received an application for aid the amount of which was 
set at BGN 0.00. For the second year of the commitment (2014), the application 
submitted resulted in a payment in the amount of BGN 15,866.49. For the third 
year of the commitment (2015), the application submitted led to the payment of 
BGN 21 796.30. 
5 On 11 August 2015, an amendment to the ZSPZZ was published in the Darzhaven 
vestnik (Official Gazette). It provided that users who had concluded agreements 
for the lease of pastures, grassland and meadows forming part of the land estates 
of municipalities before 24 February 2015 were required to bring those 
agreements into line with the requirements of Article 37i(1) and (4) of the ZSPZZ 
by 1 February 2016.  
6 The latter provision states in particular that pastures, grassland and meadows 
forming part of the land estates of municipalities are to be leased to, and 
distributed among, the owners or users of holdings for the keeping of grazing 
animals on the basis of the number and type of their declared livestock. 
7 Consequently, given that Askos did not meet those requirements, the mayors of 
the municipalities of Sungurlare and Sredets unilaterally terminated the 
agreements with Askos by letter of 29 February and 20 April 2016 respectively. 
8 On 16 May 2016, Askos reported those circumstances to the DFZ and informed it 
that, because those agreements had been terminated, it was not in a position to 
submit an aid application for 2016, and would not therefore be able to carry on the 
five-year commitment it had given. 
ASKOS PROPERTIES 
 
5 
9 In accordance with Article 14(1), point 3, of Regulation No 11, however, a farmer 
who fails to submit an aid application during the five-year commitment is to be 
excluded from the aid provided for in that regulation and is obliged to reimburse 
the payments received up to that point. If such exclusion occurs after the third 
year, 50% of the payments received are to be reimbursed. 
10 By letter of 15 August 2019, the DFZ informed Askos that, in the light of the 
aforementioned provision, it was instituting proceedings for the adoption of a 
decision establishing a public State claim (akt za ustanovyavane na publichno 
darzhavno vzemane, ‘the contested decision’). 
11 On 30 August 2019, Askos argued that it had been deprived of the use of the land 
in question for reasons beyond its control, had therefore been unable to comply 
with the commitment for 2016, and for that reason had not submitted an aid 
application either. 
12 On 23 January 2020, the zamestnik-izpalnitelen direktor na DFZ (acting executive 
director of the DFZ) adopted the contested decision seeking from Askos 
BGN 18 831.40 BGN, corresponding to 50% of all payments made under Measure 
211 for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. In the view of that authority, the 
commitment given could still have been complied with if Askos had declared 
other sites located in the same area to the DFZ. 
13 Askos brought an action for the annulment of that decision before the 
Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Sofia City Administrative Court, Bulgaria; ‘the 
Administrative Court’). That action was dismissed by judgment of 19 October 
2021. 
14 The Administrative Court held that, although, in accordance with Regulation 
No 11, a commitment is to expire without reimbursement of the aid received in 
cases of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, neither of those situations 
was present in this case. 
15 In the view of the Administrative Court, the unilateral termination of an 
agreement for the lease of immovable property in private municipal ownership 
does not preclude compliance with a multi-year commitment. Neither the relevant 
national law nor Community law requires farmers to use the same land to comply 
with commitments they have given. 
16 In the view of the Administrative Court, the applicant for annulment cannot 
successfully argue that the change to the legal framework is an unforeseen 
circumstance making it objectively impossible to comply with the multi-year 
commitment it gave. 
17 The Administrative Court is of the opinion that Article 47(4) of Regulation 
No 1305/2013 is not applicable. The situations that may be recognised as force 
majeure or exceptional circumstances, and thus as grounds for not having to 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-656/22 
 
6   
reimburse the funds paid out, are exhaustively listed. Those situations do not 
include changes to the law, on which Askos relies in the present case. 
18 It is against that judgment that Askos has brought an appeal in cassation before the 
referring court. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
19 Askos takes the view that the termination of the lease agreements concluded 
between it and the municipalities constitutes a case of force majeure and/or 
exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Regulation No 11, and that, for 
that reason, it does not owe any reimbursement of the support received. 
20 The changes and supplements to the ZSPZZ constitute a change to the legal 
framework which occurred only after it had lodged its application. The material 
facts fall within the scope of Article 2(2)(f) of Regulation 1306/2013 and 
Article 47(3) of Regulation No 1305/2013. The legal consequences arising from 
Article 77(2)(a) of Regulation No 1306/2013 must therefore apply. 
21 The DFZ considers the decision challenged by way of the appeal in cassation to be 
lawful. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
22 The referring court raises the possibility of applying Article 2(2)(f) of Regulation 
No 1306/2013 in this case. This states that, ‘for the purposes of the financing, 
management and monitoring of the CAP, “force majeure” and “exceptional 
circumstances” may, in particular, be recognised in the following cases: […] 
expropriation of all or a large part of the holding if that expropriation could not 
have been anticipated on the day of lodging the application’. However, no 
definition of the term ‘expropriation’ can be found in the case-law of the Court of 
Justice of the European Union. 
23 In the case of international treaties, it is recognised in both legal literature and 
case-law that expropriation may be direct or indirect. 
24 Indirect expropriation is thus present where the property is destroyed or the owner 
is deprived of the possibility of disposing of or using it. Acquired or contractual 
rights may also be the subject of expropriation. For example, the unlawful 
termination of a contract or the termination of a contract per se may give rise to 
the legal consequences of expropriation. 
25 In that connection, the referring court draws attention to the explanations of the 
term ‘property’ [in Bulgarian, literally: ‘possessions’, in French: ‘biens’, in 
English: ‘possessions’] given in the ‘Guide on Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the 
European Convention on Human Rights – Protection of property’. 
ASKOS PROPERTIES 
 
7 
26 Point 4 of that document states: ‘The concept of ‘possessions’ in the first part of 
Article 1 of Protocol No 1 is an autonomous one, covering both “existing 
possessions” and assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can 
argue that he or she has at least a legitimate expectation’. “Possessions” include 
rights “in rem” and “in personam”. The term encompasses immovable and 
movable property and other proprietary interests’. 
27 Point 5 of that document states: ‘The concept of “possessions” has an autonomous 
meaning which is independent from the formal classification in domestic law and 
is not limited to the ownership of physical goods: certain other rights and interests 
constituting assets can also be regarded as “property rights”, and thus as 
“possessions” for the purposes of this provision. 
28 Point 11 of the Guide states: ‘“Possessions” can be either “existing possessions” 
or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or 
she has at least a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a 
property right’. 
29 Point 51 of the aforementioned Guide states that, in certain cases, the European 
Court of Human Rights has ‘considered a lease as a proprietary interest attracting 
the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No 1’, and, in one case, held ‘that the 
applicant’s legitimate expectation in connection with property interests such as the 
use of land and the commercial activities attached to it was of sufficient 
importance to constitute a “possession” in the sense of Article 1 of Protocol No 1’. 
30 The referring court further notes that the principles of legal certainty and the 
protection of legitimate expectations are part of the Community legal order. In 
that connection, they are to be observed by both the Community institutions and 
the Member States when exercising the powers conferred on them by Community 
directives.  
31 According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 
the principle of legal certainty, from which the principle of the protection of 
legitimate expectation derives, requires, first, that legal rules be clear and precise 
and, secondly, that their application be foreseeable for the individual. That 
requirement is particularly applicable in the case of a rule which may be 
financially burdensome, since the persons concerned must be in a position to 
know precisely the extent of the obligations which that rule imposes on them.  
32 In the light of the foregoing observations, the referring court has doubts about the 
soundness of the Administrative Court’s judgment, and considers it necessary to 
submit this request for a preliminary ruling.