Order — ECLI:EU:C:2019:614
Date: 2019-07-11
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Greece

Anonymised version 
Translation C-262/19 - 1 
Case C-262/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
28 March 2019 
Referring court: 
Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (First Instance Court of Athens, 
Greece) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
8 February 2019 
Applicants: 
RM 
SN 
Defendant: 
Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados AE  
      
      
[OMISSIS] 
Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon 
[OMISSIS] 
In open court on 17 May 2018 to hear the case between: 
The applicants: 1. RM [OMISSIS] and 2. SN [OMISSIS], both resident in 
Tragana Ftiotidos [OMISSIS]. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8.2.2019 – CASE C-262/19 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
The defendant: The bank in special liquidation in the form of a limited company 
known as ‘Αgrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados ΑΕ’ legally represented by its liquidator, 
the limited company known as ‘PQR Eniaia Εidiki Εkkatharisi Αnonimi Εtairia, 
Εidikos Εkkatharistis Pistotikon Ιdrimaton’ with a separate operating title under 
the trading name ‘PQR Εniaia Eidiki Εkkatharisi ΑΕ’, legally represented, 
established in Μarousi Αttikis [OMISSIS]. 
[p 2:OR]  
The applicants claim that their action brought on 18.4.2017 should be upheld, as 
lodged at the Registry of the referring court [OMISSIS] 
[OMISSIS] [national procedure] 
By their action before the court, the applicants argue: that on the basis of contract 
No 328/29.12.2006, which was entered into by them, on the one hand, and the 
opposing party, on the other, their subsisting debts due under an earlier credit 
agreement were admitted and adjusted to a final amount of EUR 423 037.52, in 
accordance with the grounds more specifically set out in the action before the 
court; that, in order to secure the above debts owed to the defendant, which had its 
origin in a short-term loan amounting to EUR 141 157.01 which was granted to 
the applicants as farmers and which related exclusively to the funding of their 
agricultural business, the mortgages more specifically described in the action 
before the court were recorded in the local registers of securities, secured over 
their immovable property; that the applicants, upon the publication of Article 70 
of Law No 4235/2014, had made payments amounting to EUR 155 697.78 in 
consideration of their debt; that, further, on 1.10.2014 the applicants made a 
request to the defendant for the adjustment of their above debt in accordance with 
the provisions of Article 70 of Law No 4235/2014, and renewed that request on 
24.6.2015, but as matters currently stand the defendant refuses to carry out the 
appropriate action that is required of it. On those grounds, the applicants claim 
that (a) it should be declared that amount of the applicants’ debt owed to the 
defendant for the above reasons amounts to EUR 126 616.24 (141 157.01 (the 
initial amount of the loan) x 2 = 282 314.02 (the amount of the debt) – 155 697.78 
(the amount paid)) and (b) the defendant should be ordered to restrict the recorded 
mortgages over the applicants’ immovable property to the sum of 
EUR 126 616.24 x 120 % , in accordance with the provisions of Article 70 of Law 
No 4235/2014, and that the defendant should be ordered to pay the legal costs. 
[p.3 :OR]. 
[OMISSIS] [national procedure] However, Article 107(1) TFEU prohibits 
measures which, through the use of State resources, confer, for the sole benefit of 
certain undertakings or certain sectors of activity, an advantage which distorts or 
threatens to distort competition and which can have effects on trade between 
Member States. The concept of aid embraces not only positive benefits, but also 
measures which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally 
ΑGROTIKI TRAPEZA ELLADOS 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
included in the budget of an undertaking and which, therefore, without being 
subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in character and have the same 
effect. Consequently, all measures which, whatever their form, are likely directly 
or indirectly to favour certain undertakings or are to be regarded as an economic 
advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal 
market conditions are regarded as State aid (see judgment of the General Court of 
the European Union of 1 February 2018, Case Τ-423/14 – Larko v Commission). 
Consequently, the referring court has doubts as to the compatibility of the 
provisions of Article 70 of Law No 4235/2014 with the above provision of EU 
law and deems it expedient to defer the issuing of a final judgment on the action 
before it and to refer, under Article 267 TFEU, the questions set out in more detail 
in the operative part of this order to the Court of Justice of the European Union for 
a preliminary ruling.  
On those grounds, 
The referring court defers final judgment, and refers to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union the following questions: 
(Α) Can the provision in Article 70(1) of Law No 4235/2014, to the effect that ‘... 
In the case of mortgages or pre-notices of mortgages, which have been recorded in 
the registers of mortgages and in the Land Registry if appropriate in favour of the 
Bank known as “Αgrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados ΑΕ” (‘the Bank’), which has now 
entered into special liquidation, which affect farmers who are natural persons or 
third party farmers who are natural persons and are over their agricultural 
immovable property or their agricultural production plant in order to secure claims 
of the Bank of any kind which [p.4:OR] arise from loans – such as claims on the 
principal, interest, interest on arrears, including interest on interest as it falls due 
and on interest on arrears, charges, costs and expenses and all other outlays as 
specified in the relevant loan agreement – with respect to the granting by the Bank 
to farmers, natural persons, of short-term and medium-term loans which relate 
exclusively to their agricultural activity and repayment of which is overdue, 
wholly or in part, the amount of the loan with respect to which there has been 
recorded a mortgage or a pre-notice of mortgage shall be restricted in the 
proportion of 120 for every hundred (120 %) of the principal amount of the loan, 
provided that the total sum of the abovementioned claims of the Bank of any kind, 
as arising from the loan, do not exceed (including amounts already paid) an 
amount that is double the initial principal, and shall be restricted to the sum that is 
double the amount of the due principal of the loan if the total amount of the claims 
is greater than double, at the time when the present article enters into force and the 
loan becomes, if it has not already so become, payable and due in full as from that 
date. In the event that there is a recorded mortgage or pre-notice of mortgage on 
more than one agricultural immovable property, of a natural person, or of a third 
natural person, the mortgage or pre-notice of mortgage shall be limited by the 
Bank to the immovable property or properties which secure its claim up to the 
above maximum figures and preferably to the immovable property or properties 
which do not constitute the first residence and/or the main stock of agricultural 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8.2.2019 – CASE C-262/19 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
equipment of the farmer or that third party’, be classified as State aid within the 
meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU? 
(Β) Is the above provision in Article 70(1) of Law 4235/2014 compatible with the 
internal market, within the meaning of Article 107(2) TFEU? 
(C) Can the above provision in Article 70(1) of Law 4235/2014 be considered to 
be compatible with the internal market, within the meaning of Article 107(3) 
TFEU?           
[OMISSIS] 
[p 5:OR]. 
[OMISSIS] 
Heard and decided in Athens on 8.2.2019. 
[OMISSIS]