Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2021:1021
Date: 2021-12-16
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Agricultural structures
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

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: 
29 May 2020 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
7 May 2020 
Appellant: 
Euro Delta Danube SRL 
Respondent: 
Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul 
Județean Tulcea 
  
Subject matter of the action in the main proceedings 
Appeal against the civil judgment of 28 June 2019 delivered by the Tribunalul 
Tulcea (Regional Court, Tulcea, Romania) by which that court dismissed the 
action brought by the appellant concerning the partial annulment of the 
respondent’s decision relating to the single payment application in respect of 
2017. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
On the basis of Article 267 TFEU, the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Court of 
Appeal, Constanţa, Romania) requests an interpretation of Article 2(23) and 
Article 19 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 
2014. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-225/20 
 
2  
Question referred 
Are the provisions of Article 2(23) and of Article 19 of Delegated Regulation 
(EU) No 640/2014 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 to be interpreted as precluding 
national legislation that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, 
imposes administrative penalties on the farmer for over-declaration on the ground 
that he does not meet the eligibility criteria for the area considered over-declared, 
inasmuch as he cultivates an area of land with aquaculture facilities, held under a 
concession agreement, without providing evidence of the grantor’s consent that 
the land be used for agricultural purposes? 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Article 2(23) and Article 19 of 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. 
Provisions of national law cited 
Ordinul ministrului agriculturii și dezvoltării rurale nr. 476 din 7 aprilie 2016 
privind sistemul de sancțiuni aplicabil schemelor de plăți directe și ajutoarelor 
naționale tranzitorii în sectoarele vegetal și zootehnic, aferente cererilor unice de 
plată depuse la Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură, începând cu 
anul de cerere 2015 (Decree of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural 
Development No 476 of 7 April 2016 on the penalty scheme applicable to direct 
payment schemes and transitional State aid in the agricultural and livestock 
sectors, relating to single payment applications lodged with the Agency for 
Payments and Intervention in Agriculture with effect from the claim year 
2015;‘OMADR No 476/2016’). 
– Article 2(2)(ş): ‘over-declaration means the difference between the area claimed 
for payment and the area determined for payment’; 
– Article 6(e): ‘If the area declared for payment exceeds the area determined by 
more than 50% of the area determined, the farmer shall be excluded from the 
payment for the payment group concerned. Moreover, the farmer shall incur an 
additional penalty equal to the amount of aid or support corresponding to the 
difference between the area declared and the area determined. If the amount 
calculated as an additional penalty cannot be fully offset in the course of the three 
EURO DELTA DANUBE 
 
3 
calendar years following the calendar year of the finding, the outstanding balance 
shall be cancelled’. 
Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului [OUG] nr. 3/2015 pentru aprobarea 
schemelor de plăți care se aplică în agricultură în perioada 2015-2020 și pentru 
modificarea articolului 2 din Legea nr. 36/1991 privind societățile agricole și alte 
forme de asociere în agricultură (Government Emergency Order No 3/2015 
approving the payment schemes applicable to agriculture in the period 2015-2020 
and amending Article 2 of Law No 36/1991 on agricultural companies and other 
forms of associations in agriculture; ‘OUG No 3/2015’) 
Article 2 
‘(1) For the purposes of this Emergency Order: 
… 
(e) “holding” means all the production units used for agricultural activities and 
managed by a farmer situated within the territory of Romania; 
(f) “farmer” means a natural or legal person, or a form of association of natural 
or legal persons, regardless of their legal status, whose holding is situated within 
the territory of Romania and who exercises an agricultural activity; 
… 
(n) “agricultural area” means any area taken up by arable land, permanent 
grassland and permanent pasture, or permanent crops; 
(o) “arable land” means land cultivated for crop production or areas available 
for crop production but lying fallow, irrespective of whether or not that land is 
taken up by crops under greenhouses, photovoltaic greenhouses or under other 
fixed or mobile protective devices; 
… 
(r) “land use” means use for agricultural activities of the area of agricultural 
land within the holding which is available to the farmer at the time when the 
application is submitted, in the year of the application. 
…’ 
Article 8 
‘(1) In order to receive the direct payments provided for in Article 1(2), farmers 
must: 
… 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-225/20 
 
4  
(n) produce, when submitting an application for a single payment or the 
amendments made thereto, the necessary documents proving that the agricultural 
land … is available to them or, where necessary, a copy of Annex No 24 to the 
civil register of administrative territorial units. The documents showing that the 
agricultural land is available to the farmer must be signed before the single 
payment application is submitted and must be valid on the date on which the 
application is submitted; 
…’ 
Ordinul ministrului agriculturii și dezvoltării rurale nr. 619/2015 pentru 
aprobarea criteriilor de eligibilitate, condițiilor specifice și a modului de 
implementare a schemelor de plăți prevăzute la articolul 1 alineatele (2) și (3) din 
Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 3/2015 pentru aprobarea schemelor de 
plăți care se aplică în agricultură în perioada 2015-2020 și pentru modificarea 
articolului 2 din Legea nr. 36/1991 privind societățile agricole și alte forme de 
asociere în agricultură, precum și a condițiilor specifice de implementare pentru 
măsurile compensatorii de dezvoltare rurală aplicabile pe terenurile agricole, 
prevăzute în Programul Național de Dezvoltare Rurală 2014-2020 (Order of the 
Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 619/2015 approving the 
eligibility criteria, specific conditions and detailed rules for the application of the 
payment schemes set out in Article 1(2) and (3) of Government Emergency Order 
No 3/2015 approving the payment schemes applicable to agriculture in the period 
2015-2020 and amending Article 2 of Law No 36/1991 on agricultural companies 
and other forms of associations in agriculture, and the specific conditions for 
implementing the rural development countervailing measures applicable to 
agricultural land set out in the National Rural Development Plan 2014-2020; 
‘OMADR No 619/2015’) 
Article 2(u) ‘“area determined” means, for area-related aid schemes, the area for 
which all eligibility criteria or other obligations relating to the conditions for the 
granting of the aid have been met; or, for area-related support measures, the area 
of plots or parcels as identified by means of administrative or on-the-spot checks’. 
Article 5 
‘(2) As from the claim year 2015, documents which show the lawful use of the 
land and which are submitted to the [Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru 
Agricultură (Agency for payments and measures for agriculture)], pursuant to 
Article 8(1)(n) of the Government Emergency Order shall be those which 
concern: 
(a) the holding in which the agricultural activity is exercised: the attesting 
document must be completed in accordance with the framework model … and be 
accompanied by a certified copy of the original pages on which the data were 
entered … in the 2015-2019 agricultural register, in accordance with the 
framework model … and 
EURO DELTA DANUBE 
 
5 
(b) the agricultural land at the farmer’s disposal: certified copies of the original 
title to the property or other instruments evidencing ownership of the land or other 
documents …; 
(c) unequivocal identification of the agricultural parcels used’. 
Article 10 
‘(5) The following areas shall not be eligible for payment: 
… 
(o) areas with aquaculture facilities, as provided for in Article 23(20) of the 
Normele tehnice de completare a registrului agricol pentru perioada 2015-2019 
(Technical standards supplementing the agricultural register for the period 2015-
2019) approved by Ordinul ministrului agriculturii și dezvoltării rurale, al 
ministrului dezvoltării regionale și administrației publice, al ministrului finanțelor 
publice și al președintelui Institutului Național de Statistică nr. 
734/480/1.003/3.727/2015 (Decree of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural 
Development, the Minister for Regional Development and Public Administration, 
the Minister for Public Finance and the President of the National Statistics Office 
No 734/480/1.003/3.727/2015)’. 
Legea nr. 283/2015 pentru modificarea Legii nr. 82/1993 privind constituirea 
Rezervației Biosferei „Delta Dunării” (Law No 283/2015 amending Law 
No 82/1993 on the creation of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve) 
Article I 
‘1. Throughout the territory of the reserve, the change of use of agricultural land 
used as productive agricultural land or as aquaculture facilities shall be made with 
the agreement of the administrator, solely on the basis of technical studies carried 
out by experts’. 
Article II 
‘(1) Within 12 months of the date of entry into force of the present law, the 
owners, tenants and concessionaires of land used as agricultural or aquaculture 
facilities whose use has been changed are required to have studies carried out by 
experts, with the agreement of the administrator, showing the way in which the 
agricultural or aquaculture facilities in question are being used. 
(2) Within three years of the date of entry into force of the present law, the 
owners/concessionaires of the land whose use has been changed, without the 
studies carried out by experts justifying it, are required to return it to its original 
state’. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-225/20 
 
6  
Ordonanța de urgență nr. 23 privind pescuitul și acvacultura (Emergency Order 
No 23 on fisheries and aquaculture) of 5 March 2008 — Article 2(2), which 
defines ‘aquaculture facility’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 Euro Delta Danube SRL is a Romanian legal entity involved in the business of 
aquaculture and cereal cultivation. On 1 October 2002, the company signed a 49-
year concession agreement with Consiliul Local Maliuc (Maliuc Municipal 
Council), covering an area of 137 hectares to be used for aquaculture. Following 
an amendment to the concession agreement, the area increased from 137 hectares 
to 142.2632 hectares. On 13 May 2016, Maliuc Municipal Council adopted 
Decision No 118 authorising agricultural activities on the land granted under 
concession, comprising an area of 142.2632 hectares for a period of five years. 
2 On 16 February 2006, the company signed a 44-year concession agreement with 
Consiliul Județean Tulcea (Tulcea Provincial Council, Romania), covering an area 
of 315 hectares, to be used for aquaculture. 
3 Under Amendment No 2 to the agreement, signed on 20 May 2014, it was agreed 
that, in order to achieve the purpose of the concession agreement of 16 February 
2006, aquaculture and crop rotation would be carried out for soil mineralisation 
purposes, as well as other activities required in accordance with the technical 
standards for aquaculture, over an area of 200 hectares out of a total of 315 
hectares. These consisted of the temporary set-aside from aquaculture production 
of a facility or part thereof for a period of six months to three years in order to 
restore soil productivity through cereal cultivation. The land would then revert to 
use again for aquaculture. 
4 In the 2017 marketing year, Euro Delta Danube SRL made partial use of the two 
plots of land under concession for agricultural purposes. Pursuant to OUG 
No 3/2015, it submitted the single payment application of 15 May 2017 for an 
area of 288.37 hectares (100.58 hectares held under the concession agreement 
with Maliuc Municipal Council and 187.79 hectares held under the concession 
agreement with Tulcea Provincial Council). 
5 The respondent issued a payment notice on 25 September 2018 which shows that, 
from an analysis of the documents attached to the application, the area determined 
was 100.58 hectares out of the total area declared of 288.37 hectares. Accordingly, 
the total amount payable was set at 30 360.89 Romanian lei (‘RON’) for the area 
determined of 100.58 hectares, plus additional penalties of RON 364 943.27 for 
over-declaration, in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 640/2014. 
The complaint initially lodged against this decision was rejected. 
6 On 10 January 2019, Euro Delta Danube SRL brought an action before the 
Tribunalul Tulcea (High Court, Tulcea, Romania) seeking annulment of the 
decision on the complaint and partial annulment of the payment notice issued by 
EURO DELTA DANUBE 
 
7 
the Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură [APIA] — Centrul Județean 
Tulcea (Agency for Agricultural Payments and Interventions (‘APIA’) — Tulcea 
Provincial Centre, Romania), and specifically of the provisions concerning the 
application of penalties of RON 364 943.27 as a result of the over-declaration of 
the areas, and seeking an order requiring the respondent to pay the differences 
constituting a subsidy. 
7 By civil judgment of 28 June 2019, the High Court, Tulcea, dismissed the action 
as unfounded. Euro Delta Danube SRL lodged an appeal against the judgment of 
the lower court before the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Court of Appeal, Constanţa, 
Romania) on 13 August 2019. 
The essential arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
8 The appellant submits that over-declaration occurs where there are excessive 
differences between the areas declared by the farmer as agricultural parcels used 
within a physical block and the reference areas of the physical block included in 
the integrated administration and control system (IACS) actually cultivated. The 
appellant considers that the lower court incorrectly applied the provisions of 
Article 2(2)(ș) of OMADR No 476/2016, which define over-declaration. 
9 For that reason, the appellant seeks a finding that the penalty for over-declaration 
applies only in the case where the farmer declares an area that, under Delegated 
Regulation (EU) No 640/2014, is more than 50% larger than the area actually used 
within a physical block, determined by an administrative or on-the-spot check by 
the APIA, and not where the farmer fails to document in writing the payment 
application for part of the area. 
10 It argues that, if the APIA had considered that the documents lodged on the date 
of submission of the payment application did not demonstrate the right of use over 
the land, the official responsible for the administrative check of payment 
applications should have refused to register the application on the basis of 
ineligibility criteria. Furthermore, the APIA had the option of requesting any 
further information that it deemed necessary. 
11 The appellant seeks a finding that non-fulfilment of the eligibility criteria for the 
entire area in respect of which payment was claimed (in other words, the lack of 
evidence concerning the use of the land for productive agricultural purposes) does 
not constitute a ground for applying the multiannual penalties for over-declaration 
of cultivated areas. 
12 The respondent submits that the land granted under concession for aquaculture 
purposes, but used as agricultural land without the grantor’s consent and without 
meeting the statutory requirements for change of use, is not eligible for payment, 
with the result that the penalties for over-declaration were applied correctly. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-225/20 
 
8  
Succinct presentation of the grounds for the request for a preliminary ruling 
13 The appeal court is required to rule on the legality of the administrative acts by 
which the appellant’s application for financial support was partially rejected. For 
part of the area declared, the provisions of national law requiring payment for land 
comprising aquaculture facilities used as arable land have not been complied with 
unless certain formalities have been fulfilled. The situation was assessed by the 
respondent as constituting ‘over-declaration’ and penalties were imposed 
accordingly. 
14 The provisions of national law define ‘over-declaration’ as the difference between 
the area for which payment is claimed and the area determined for the purposes 
of payment; however, EU law does not contain a definition of ‘over-declaration’ 
and merely lays down payment methods and penalties in the event of ‘over-
declaration’. 
15 The area declared (the area in respect of which payment is requested) by the 
appellant is 288.37 hectares, as shown in the single payment application for the 
year 2017. 
16 So far as the area determined is concerned, the Romanian legislature, in line with 
EU legislation — Article 2(u) of Decree No 619/2015 and Article 2(23) of 
Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 — has established that it corresponds, 
for area-related aid schemes, to the area for which all eligibility criteria or other 
obligations relating to the conditions for the granting of the aid have been met, 
regardless of the number of payment entitlements at the beneficiary’s disposal, or 
for area-related support measures, the area of plots or parcels as identified by 
means of administrative or on-the-spot checks. 
17 It is noted that both the national and the EU legislatures draw a distinction 
between area-related aid schemes and area-related support measures. In the case 
of the appellant, as is apparent from the payment notice issued, the amount to be 
paid has been fixed under a payment scheme. 
18 The referring court has already submitted to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of 
Article 4(1)(b), (c), (e) and (f), Article 10, Article 21(1) and Article 32(1) to (5) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, on the ground that national law excludes from 
payment land with aquaculture facilities used as arable land because it does not 
constitute an ‘agricultural area’ within the meaning of Article 4 of that regulation 
(Case C-304/2019, Ira Invest). 
19 In the present case, the authorities, having ascertained that part of the area 
declared and granted for aquaculture purposes is being used for agricultural 
purposes without the grantor’s consent to change of use, have concluded — 
besides the fact that it is not eligible for payment since it is not an ‘agricultural 
area’ — that the situation amounts to one of ‘over-declaration’ requiring payment 
EURO DELTA DANUBE 
 
9 
of a penalty, calculated on the basis of the difference in relation to the area 
declared. 
20 National law permits exclusion from payment for an area considered ineligible 
according to the law. However, at the same time, in identical situations, it permits 
the exclusion of an area of land from the category of ‘area declared’ by the farmer 
for non-compliance with the eligibility criteria, resulting in a difference between 
the area declared (for which payment is claimed) and that determined by the 
authority (by excluding land considered ineligible for payment), in which case 
penalties apply. 
21 In such circumstances, it is useful to determine whether the definition of ‘over-
declaration’ in national law corresponds to EU legislation and whether the ‘area 
determined’ by the authority by excluding an area considered ineligible 
corresponds, in the case of over-declaration, to the area determined by applying 
the concept of ‘area determined’, which exists in national and EU law. 
22 Therefore, having doubts as to how national law is to be applied differently in 
identical situations (the exclusion from payment of an area that does not meet the 
eligibility criteria and the simultaneous exclusion from payment and the 
application of a penalty), the national court deems it useful, in the context of the 
present case, to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.