Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:830
Date: 2025-10-23
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-466/24 – 1 
Case C-466/24 [Venshova] i 
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 July 2024 
Referring court:  
Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
18 June 2024 
Applicant:  
LQ 
Defendant:  
Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
In an administrative case, LQ brought an action against an individual 
administrative act, which is referred to as letter of notification No 02-030-
6500/572 of 13 January 2023, was issued by the Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor 
na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ (Deputy Executive Director of the State 
Agricultural Fund) and is contested in so far as it reduced the financial assistance 
claimed by the applicant within the framework of three measures. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
An interpretation of Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021, Article 28 of Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 and Articles 18, 19 
and 19a of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 
2014 is sought pursuant to Article 267 TFEU. 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-466/24 
 
2  
Clarification is also sought as to the applicability of the repeal, in effect from 
1 January 2023, of Article 19a of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
No 640/2014 in its latest version. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Under Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021, Article 28 of Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 and Articles 18 
and 19 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 
2014, is national legislation and practice on the part of the paying agency of the 
Republic of Bulgaria in respect of the application of national provisions – in 
particular, Article 41(3) and (4) of the Zakon za podpomagane na zemedelskite 
proizvoditeli (Law on support for farmers; ‘the ZPZP’) – permissible whereby a 
farmer is denied entitlement to financial assistance for areas in respect of which he 
or she has concluded a land-use agreement for the same year without that legal 
basis being registered in the system of the Ministry of Agriculture within the 
statutory timeframe for doing so? 
2. Having regard to the third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is a penalty under Article 19a 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 2022 L 183, p. 12], recital 16 of 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 in force for the 2021 marketing year, to 
be imposed on a farmer if, on the date of the letter imposing the penalty, that is to 
say, on 13 January 2023, Article 19a of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 did not exist in the version applicable from 
1 January 2023? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up 
by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) 
and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing 
Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 – Article 4(4), 
VENSHOVA 
 
3 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 
laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other 
bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, securities 
and transparency – Article 28, 
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 – 
Articles 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 in the common 
agricultural policy and the application and calculation of administrative penalties 
for conditionality, 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – third sentence of 
Article 49(1), 
Judgment of 2 October 2014, Van Den Broeck, C-525/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2254, 
Judgment of 29 April 2021, Piscicola Tulcea and Ira Invest, C-294/19 and 
C-304/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:340, 
Judgment of 7 April 2022, SC Avio Lucos, 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’) – Article 41(3) and (4) and Article 43, 
Naredba No 5 ot 27.02.2009 za usloviyata i reda za podavane na zayavlenia za 
shemi i merki za direktni plashtania (Regulation No 5 of 27 February 2009 on the 
conditions and procedure for submitting applications under direct payment 
schemes and measures). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The parties to the proceedings before the Administrativen sad Varna 
(Administrative Court, Varna, Bulgaria) are LQ (the applicant) and the Deputy 
Executive Director of the State Agricultural Fund (defendant in the administrative 
case). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-466/24 
 
4  
2 LQ questions the lawfulness of an individual administrative act referred to as 
‘letter of notification on the approval and payment of financial assistance paid 
under schemes and measures for area-related direct payments in the 2021 
marketing year’ No 02-030-6500/572 of 13 January 2023 and issued by the 
Deputy Executive Director of the State Agricultural Fund in so far as it reduces 
the financial assistance claimed by the applicant within the framework of the 
following three measures: (1) sub-measure 13.1/NR (compensation payment in 
mountain areas), in respect of which the amount claimed of 14 933.32 Bulgarian 
leva (BGN) was reduced by BGN 1 341.79, (2) the single area support scheme, in 
respect of which the amount claimed of BGN 15 515.82 was reduced by 
BGN 2 265.94, and (3) the payment scheme for agricultural practices beneficial 
for the climate and environment – green direct payments – in respect of which the 
amount claimed of BGN 9 755.94 was reduced by BGN 6 205.85. The letter of 
notification also states that, in respect of the area schemes managed in accordance 
with Article 19 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 for the 
2021 marketing year, penalties amounting to BGN 810.39 are imposed which may 
be off-set against future payments. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
3 The applicant takes the view that there are no grounds for reducing the financial 
assistance claimed. She asserts that the findings contained in the letter are not 
based on the facts relevant to the present case, the applicable substantive law was 
disregarded and the letter contains no case-specific grounds. She submits that it is 
not clear from the content of the letter what properly determined legally relevant 
circumstances form the basis of the administrative decision to reduce the amounts 
to be approved in the context of the financial assistance claimed by the applicant. 
4 The letter of notification states that the total amount approved was calculated 
using the integrated administration and control system (Integrirana sistema za 
administrirane i kontrol; ‘the ISAK’), after the prescribed administrative and/or 
on-the-spot checks had been carried out in respect of the information given in the 
applicant’s claim for financial assistance. That information, it states, were 
compared with the ‘corresponding available information’ in the external registries 
of the ISAK, which are maintained in pursuant to the ZPZP. The letter specifies 
that the information held there formed the basis for calculating the final amount of 
the financial assistance under area-based schemes and measures (after reductions) 
which the applicant had claimed. The applicant maintains that the letter contains 
no indication of findings on the individual points where the information she gave 
is alleged to differ from the verification data. She states that it also does not 
indicate when and how the checks are alleged to have taken place and whether 
they are supposed to have been carried out in the presence of the applicant or of a 
representative. 
5 The applicant assumes that the administrative authority considers the three other 
criteria applicable and presumably reduces financial assistance on the basis of 
VENSHOVA 
 
5 
those criteria. She identifies the criteria as (1) administrative checks during which 
all ineligible areas of the relevant claim are determined – checks on areas claimed 
by more than one claimant, on-the-spot checks or automated checks using the data 
in the identification system for agricultural parcels and the data made available by 
the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry for the Environment and Water; (2) 
failure to meet the deadlines for submitting and/or revising claims under 
Article 12 of Regulation No 5 of 27 February 2009 on the conditions and 
procedure for submitting applications under direct payment schemes and 
measures; and (3) the adjustment rate (financial discipline) under Article 26 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 and Article 8(1) of Regulation 1307/2013 and in 
implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/951 of 11 June 2021, the 
adjustment rate for the 2021 marketing year having been fixed at 1.658907%. 
6 She submits that it is not apparent from the letter of notification, however, what 
circumstance is alleged to fulfil each of those criteria as grounds for the reduction 
of financial assistance within the framework of the measures at issue. 
7 In summary, she asserts that the contested letter is unfounded and was issued 
without clarification of the facts and relevant circumstances of the case. She 
maintains that it is not possible to deduce from its contents on what legally 
relevant facts the administrative authority bases its decision. Such a lack of 
grounds, the applicant submits, not only adversely affects her rights of defence but 
also makes hampers judicial review, as the court has to deal with suppositions and 
assumptions about the administrative authority’s actual intention. 
8 The defendant maintains that administrative checks were carried out in 
accordance with Articles 28 and 29 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2014 
of 17 July 2014, Article 74 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1306 of 
17 December 2013 and Article 37(2) of the ZPZP in respect of the information 
given in the applicant’s claim, the results of which were set out in detail in the 
letter of notification sent. 
9 The defendant submits that, under Article 41(3) of the ZPZP, the areas of 
agricultural land specified in the claim for financial assistance must be at the 
farmer’s disposal within the meaning of Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 
2021/2115 on 31 May of the calendar year in question, evidence of which must be 
provided within the timeframe specified in the ZPZP by means of a legal basis for 
land use registered in accordance with the Zakon za sobstvenostta i polzvaneto na 
zemedelskite zemi (Law on the ownership and use of agricultural land, ‘the 
ZSPZZ’). He asserts that the applicant specified areas of agricultural land which 
exceeded the registered legal basis for land use. He maintains that the ISAK 
generated an error message on the basis of Article 41(6) of the ZPZP according to 
which the areas registered in the claim for financial assistance which are not cover 
by a legal basis are considered an over-declaration. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-466/24 
 
6  
10 The defendant submits that, in the context of the single area payment scheme, the 
applicant’s claim specified an area of 80.21 ha for the 2021 marketing year, while 
the area determined by the administrative authority was 75.86 ha. 
11 He submits that the area declared in the context of sub-measure 13.1 – 
compensation payment in mountain areas facing significant natural constraints – 
was 66.22 ha. The defendant asserts that an area of 62.82 ha was determined in 
accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 6 of 24 February 2015 on the 
application of measure 13 – payments to areas facing natural or other specific 
constraints – of the 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme. He states that 
penalties were imposed for the ineligible area of 2.55 ha. 
12 With regard to green direct payments, he submits, the grounds for the reduction 
are set out in the opinion of the Deputy Executive Director. He argues that it is 
clear from financial assistance claim UIN 03/280521/91141 that the 5% of arable 
land set aside as ecological focus area provided for in Regulation (EC) 
No 1307/2013 is lacking. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
13 In the view of the referring court, the dispute concerning the application of the law 
arose from the fact that a different legal basis for the use of the land declared by 
LQ was registered for a different farmer. 
14 The Administrative Court, Varna, considers that the dispute concerning the 
application of the provisions of national law must be resolved in the light of 
Article 19a of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 (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) and the third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
15 There is no interpretation of the contentious issues by the Court of Justice of the 
European Union which the referring court can apply, as the case-law of the Court 
of Justice relates to circumstances that differ from those of the present dispute and 
is based on national provisions other than those at issue in the present case. 
16 The referring court notes that Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 contains Article 19a in the version of 9 March 
2021. It finds that Article 19a is absent from the subsequent version of 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014, applicable from 1 January 
2023. 
17 The referring court notes that recital 16 of Commission Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2022/1172 of 4 May 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the 
VENSHOVA 
 
7 
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 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’ and Article 13 (‘Repeal’) reads, ‘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.’ In the view of the 
referring court, the question therefore arises as to the applicability of the repeal of 
Article 19a of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 in its latest version, that is 
to say, the version applicable from 1 January 2023. 
18 If the question concerning the repeal of the penalty provision contained in 
Article 19a in the latest version of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 is answered in the affirmative, the question arises 
whether, if the administrative act with the penalty imposed on that (now absent) 
basis was issued on 13 January 2023 – that is to say, after the entry into force of 
the latest version of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 
11 March 2014 – the third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union is applicable in respect of the penalty imposed. 
19 It is the view of the referring court that, in order to fulfil its obligation to interpret 
the applicable provisions of national law in conformity with EU law, it must refer 
questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling 
pursuant to Article 267 TFEU.