Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:247
Date: 2026-03-26
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: First Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Anonymised version 
Translation C-434/24 - 1 
Case C-434/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
18 June 2024 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
13 May 2024 
Appellant 
JD 
Respondent 
Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale – Agenția de Plăți și 
Intervenție pentru Agricultură – Centrul Județean Bistrița-Năsăud 
  
[…] 
CURTEA DE APEL CLUJ 
SECȚIA A III-A CONTENCIOS ADMINISTRATIV ȘI FISCAL 
(COURT OF APPEAL, CLUJ, ROMANIA, THIRD DIVISION FOR 
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TAX MATTERS) 
[…] 
ORDER 
Public hearing of 13 May 2024 
[…] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 5. 2024 – CASE C-434/24 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
The referring court has examined the appeal lodged by the appellant JD against 
Civil Judgment No 197/2023 delivered on 15 June 2023 by the Tribunalul 
Bistrița-Năsăud (Bistrița-Năsăud Regional Court, Romania) […] in the 
proceedings between the appellant and the respondent, the Ministerul Agriculturii 
și Dezvoltării Rurale – Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură – Centrul 
Județean Bistrița-Năsăud (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development – 
Payments and Intervention Agency for Agriculture (APIA) – Bistrița-Năsăud 
District Centre), seeking the annulment of an administrative act (Decision 
No 1/05.01.2023). 
[…] 
The Registrar of the referring court indicates that the case at hand has been re-
registered in order to invite the parties to reflect on the need to refer questions to 
the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling […] 
[…] [indication of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, reproduced in 
the operative part of the request for a preliminary ruling] 
[…] 
The referring court, having regard to the need to include in the record the response 
by [the Court of Justice of the European Union] to the questions referred for a 
preliminary ruling, submits the questions [to the Court of Justice] for a 
preliminary ruling, […]. 
THE REFERRING COURT 
I. Subject matter of the case, position of the parties and facts established 
by the referring court 
The [appellant] JD applied for financial support for agriculture for the year 2019 
and indeed received financial support from the European funds EAGF and 
EAFRD, as well as from national funds, for a total area of 41.69 hectares (ha) of 
municipal meadows. 
The grazing area regarding which the [appellant] applied for support had been 
allocated to her by means of Lease Agreement No 1125/24.05.2018, concluded 
with the municipality of Chiochiș, concerning the lease of an area of 58.32 ha 
(‘the lease agreement’). 
[The lease agreement] was cancelled by Civil Judgment No 151/2019 handed 
down at a public hearing on 10 May 2019. The appeal filed against that judgment 
was dismissed by the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Court of Appeal, Cluj, Romania) in 
Civil Decision No 286/2020 as having been filed out of time. 
APIA – CENTRUL JUDEȚEAN BISTRIȚA-NĂSĂUD 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
The judgment cancelling [the lease agreement] was essentially based on the fact 
that there had been no publication of a call for tenders by direct negotiation within 
the 5-day period laid down in Article 25 of Annex 2 to Resolution 
No 23/19.04.2018 of the Municipality of Chiochiș’ Municipal Council approving 
the lease of the municipal meadows of the Municipality of Chiochiș by open 
public tender, the lease regulation and the tender documents, with the result that 
the evaluation committee could not lawfully proceed with the award by direct 
negotiation of the meadows [to the appellant], making it necessary to annul the 
award procedure and to cancel the resulting measures, including the lease 
agreement concluded with the [appellant]. 
It was held, in essence, that the cancellation [of the lease agreement], on which the 
[appellant’s] application for support was based, had been ordered as a result of the 
local authority’s failure to fulfil an obligation, without any fault being found on 
the part of the [appellant]. 
Under national legislation, cancellation of a contract has retroactive effect. Indeed, 
pursuant to Article 1254 of the Codul civil (Romanian Civil Code): ‘A contract 
which is rendered null and void or which is cancelled is deemed never to have 
been concluded’. 
Accordingly, by Statement No 10796/24.11.2022 finding irregularities and 
settling budgetary claims, it was established that, as [the lease agreement] had 
been cancelled, it was necessary to refund the sum given in aid that had been 
granted for the plots of land under that agreement, and it was therefore established 
that the beneficiary had received the undue sum of 83 334.01 Romanian lei 
(RON). 
By the action […] [brought in the present proceedings], the [appellant JD (then the 
applicant)], bringing proceedings against [the respondent (then the defendant)], 
the Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale – Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție 
pentru Agricultură – Centrul Județean Bistrița-Năsăud, sought (i) the annulment of 
Decision No 1/05.01.2023 concerning the ruling on the complaint lodged by JD 
and registered with the Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură – Centrul 
Județean Bistrița-Năsăud […][,] (ii) the upholding of the complaint lodged and, 
consequently, (iii) the annulment of the claim consisting in Statement 
No 10796/24.11.2022 finding irregularities and settling budgetary claims, 
concerning Single Payment Application No BN- 28061/10.05.2019 [under the 
Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS)] – with the European funds EAGF and 
EAFRD, as well as with national funds[,] in addition to the costs of the 
proceedings. 
By Civil Judgment No 197/2023, the Tribunalul Bistrița-Năsăud […] held, in 
essence, that no administrative penalty had been imposed on the appellant, as only 
the restitution of the sums considered to have been wrongfully received by her for 
the areas of land covered by the commitment had been ordered; accordingly, that 
court considered that the criterion of absence of fault/guilt, omission/direct action 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 5. 2024 – CASE C-434/24 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
not attributable to the [appellant] as beneficiary of the payments could not be 
applicable. The Tribunalul [Bistrița-Năsăud] held that the cancellation of the lease 
agreement that had formed the basis for granting the requested payments for the 
2019 campaign was governed, in terms of the effects of nullity, by the provisions 
of Article 1254(1) [of the] Codul civil: ‘A contract which is rendered null and 
void or which is cancelled is deemed never to have been concluded, with regard to 
Article 8(1)(n) of [Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului (Government Emergency 
Order; ‘OUG’)] No 3/2015 requiring applicant farmers to comply with the 
general eligibility requirements, including the existence of a valid document under 
which the agricultural land is in their disposal, [and] according to Article 6(1) of 
OUG No 66/2011[,] the authorities responsible for managing the European funds 
are obliged to exclude, in whole or in part, from the reimbursement/payment of 
the expenses incurred and declared by beneficiaries, any expenditure that does not 
comply with the conditions of lawfulness or conformity laid down by the 
provisions of the national and Community legislation in force, in a situation 
where – in the payment claim verification process – they determine that such 
expenditure does indeed exist. 
The [appellant] filed an appeal against that judgment, requesting that the judgment 
under appeal be set aside and that, after being referred back for fresh adjudication, 
the action as originally filed be upheld. 
At the appeal stage, the referring court invited the parties to reflect on the need to 
put forward the following questions [for a preliminary ruling]: 
[…] [indication of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, reproduced in 
the operative part of the request for a preliminary ruling] 
By written observations placed in the case file, the [appellant] […] has stated that 
she considers that putting forward the questions for a preliminary ruling indicated 
by the court is necessary. 
By written observations placed in the case file […], the [respondent], the Agenția 
de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură – Centrul Județean Bistrița-Năsăud, has 
stated that it objects to putting forward the questions referred for a preliminary 
ruling, as it considers that they are not necessary. 
II. Relevant legal provisions in the case at hand regarding the first 
question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Under Article 63(1) 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]: ‘1. Where it is found 
that a beneficiary does not comply with the eligibility criteria, commitments or 
other obligations relating to the conditions for the granting of the aid or support, 
APIA – CENTRUL JUDEȚEAN BISTRIȚA-NĂSĂUD 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
as provided for in the sectoral agricultural legislation, the aid shall not be paid or 
shall be withdrawn in full or in part and, where relevant, the corresponding 
payment entitlements as referred to in Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1307/2013 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 
2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes 
within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council 
Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009] shall not 
be allocated or shall be withdrawn.’ 
Pursuant to Article 6(1) of [OUG] nr. 66/2011 privind prevenirea, constatarea și 
sancționarea neregulilor apărute în obținerea și utilizarea fondurilor europene 
și/sau a fondurilor publice naționale aferente acestora (Government Emergency 
Order No 66/2011 concerning the prevention and detection of, and penalties for, 
irregularities encountered in the allocation and use of European funds and/or 
national public funds relating thereto), ‘1. The authorities responsible for the 
European funds shall be obliged to exclude, in whole or in part, from the 
reimbursement/payment of the expenses incurred and declared by the 
beneficiaries any expenditure that does not comply with the conditions of 
lawfulness or conformity laid down by the provisions of the national and 
Community legislation in force, in a situation where – in the payment claim 
verification process – they determine that such expenditure does indeed exist’. 
Pursuant to Article 8(1)(n) of 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 for the approval 
of payment schemes that apply in agriculture in the period 2015-2020 and for the 
amendment of Article 2 of Law No 36/1991 on agricultural companies and other 
types of agricultural association), ‘In order to benefit from the direct payments 
provided for in Article 1(2), farmers must: … present, when submitting a single 
payment application or amendments thereto, the necessary documents proving the 
legal use of the agricultural land, including land containing areas of environmental 
interest, and of animals. These documents must be signed prior to the filing of the 
single payment application and must be valid at least until 1 December of the 
application year’. 
Pursuant to Article 1254 of the Codul civil, ‘a contract which is rendered null and 
void or which is cancelled is deemed never to have been concluded’. 
III. Grounds for referring the first question for a preliminary ruling 
The referring court considers that the question arises as to whether or not the 
concept of non-compliance with the eligibility criteria includes a situation in 
which, for reasons independent of any fault on the part of the beneficiary, a 
contract that was valid at the time the conditions for eligibility were assessed is 
cancelled. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 5. 2024 – CASE C-434/24 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
The difficulty in interpretation arises from the fact that, in the case of the 
cancellation of a contract with retroactive effect, the beneficiary has indeed 
complied with the eligibility criterion relating to the legal possession of land at the 
time of filing the application, and indeed subsequently, until the time of the 
cancellation of the contract, without any other irregularity relating to the 
application for payment or the use of the land being attributable to it; on the other 
hand, irrespective of the beneficiary’s fault, the cancellation of the contract 
produces retroactive effects, including with regard to the time of filing of the 
application for payment. 
As a consequence, the Court of Justice of the European Union is asked to issue a 
preliminary ruling on the following question: 
[…] [indication of the first question referred for a preliminary ruling, reproduced 
in the operative part of the request for a preliminary ruling] 
In the referring court’s view, this does not include a situation where the contract is 
cancelled with retroactive effect. This is because the referring court considers 
[that] Article 63(1) of [Regulation No 1306/2013] must be interpreted as taking 
into account concrete compliance with the eligibility criteria when these are 
assessed, the cancellation of the contract with retroactive effect not being relevant. 
It considers that such a situation should be taken into account from the moment of 
cancellation when assessing the title to the land in dispute. It considers that this 
position is the correct one because, otherwise, a beneficiary may find itself in a 
situation where it is asked to repay the sums received when it is in no way at fault 
and indeed, until the time of the cancellation, all the eligibility criteria were 
complied with and all the conditions relating to the use of the land were satisfied. 
To the extent, however, that the Court of Justice of the European Union were to 
hold that, in the interpretation of Article 63(1) of [Regulation No 1306/2013], a 
situation in which a beneficiary does not satisfy the conditions for eligibility must 
also include the situation in which a contract that was valid at the time of the 
assessment of the conditions for eligibility is cancelled with retroactive effect, in 
accordance with national legislation, regardless of the time at which such 
cancellation occurs, the referring court puts forward a second question for a 
preliminary ruling. 
IV. Relevant legal provisions in the case at hand regarding the second 
question referred for a preliminary ruling 
[…] [quoting the text of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, reproduced 
above in section II] 
Pursuant to Article 63(2) of [Regulation No 1306/2013], […] ‘moreover, where 
sectoral agricultural legislation so provides, Member States shall also impose 
administrative penalties, in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 64 and 
APIA – CENTRUL JUDEȚEAN BISTRIȚA-NĂSĂUD 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
Article 77. This shall be without prejudice to the provisions set out in Articles 91 
to 101 of Title VI.[’] 
Pursuant to Article 64(1) of [Regulation No 1306/2013], ‘as regards the 
administrative penalties referred to in Article 63(2), this Article shall apply in 
cases of non-compliance in relation to eligibility criteria, commitments or other 
obligations resulting from the application of sectoral agricultural legislation, with 
the exception of those referred to in Articles 67 to 78 of Chapter II of this Title 
and in Articles 91 to 101 of Title VI and of those subject to the penalties provided 
for in Article 89(3) and 89(4).’ 
Pursuant to Article 64(2)(d) [of that regulation], no administrative sanctions are to 
be imposed ‘where the person concerned can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
competent authority that he or she is not at fault for the non-compliance with the 
obligations referred to in paragraph 1 or if the competent authority is otherwise 
satisfied that the person concerned is not at fault’. 
Pursuant to Article 64(5) of [Regulation No 1306/2013], […] ‘the administrative 
penalties shall be proportionate and graduated according to the severity, extent, 
duration and reoccurrence of the non-compliance found, and shall respect the 
following limits: 
(a) the amount of the administrative penalty as referred to in point (a) of 
paragraph 4 shall not exceed 200% of the amount of the aid application or 
payment claim; 
(b) notwithstanding point (a), as regards rural development, the amount of the 
administrative penalty, as referred to in point (a) of paragraph 4, shall not exceed 
100% of the eligible amount; 
(c) the amount of the administrative penalty, as referred to in point (b) of 
paragraph 4, shall not exceed an amount comparable to the percentage referred to 
in point (a) of this paragraph; 
(d) the suspension, withdrawal or exclusion referred to in points (c) and (d) of 
paragraph 4 may be set at a maximum of three consecutive years which may be 
renewed in the case of any new non-compliance.’ 
V. Grounds for referring the second question for a preliminary ruling 
The difficulty in interpretation arises from the fact that Article 64(5) of 
[Regulation No 1306/2013], which lays down the legal regime for the application 
of penalties, expressly refers to the administrative penalties provided for in 
Article 63(2) of that regulation, without mentioning the provisions of Article 63(1) 
thereof. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 5. 2024 – CASE C-434/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
Moreover, the withdrawal, in full or in part, of the payment made in respect of the 
aid covered by Article 63(1) of that regulation is a measure similar, in terms of its 
concrete application, to the administrative penalties provided for in 
Article 64(4)(a) and (b) thereof: ‘a reduction in the amount of aid or support to be 
paid in relation to the aid application or payment claim affected by the non-
compliance or further applications’ and ‘payment of an amount calculated on the 
basis of the quantity and/or the period concerned by the non-compliance’, 
respectively. 
Moreover, Article 63(1) [of Regulation No 1306/2013] refers to the withdrawal of 
the payment made in respect of the aid ‘in full or in part’, without specifying the 
situations in which [the withdrawal] must be […] in full or in part. 
Consequently, it appears necessary for the Court of Justice of the European Union 
to clarify whether or not the principle of proportionality applies in the application 
of Article 63(1) of [Regulation No 1306/2013]. 
In the referring court’s view, the principle of proportionality does indeed apply in 
this situation. Therefore, in particular, in a situation such as that in the case at 
hand (to the extent that the first question is answered in the affirmative), the 
referring court considers that it is justified to base the withdrawal, in full or in 
part, of the aid that has been granted both on the time at which the cancellation of 
the contract with retroactive effect actually occurred and on the degree of fault of 
the beneficiary with regard to the cause of cancellation of the contract. 
On those grounds, pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, the referring court requests the Court of Justice of the European 
Union to give a ruling on the questions set out above. 
[…] [stay of proceedings] 
ON THOSE GROUNDS 
IN THE NAME OF THE LAW 
ORDERS 
that the following questions be referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling: 
‘1. In the interpretation of Article 63(1) 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], does a situation in 
which a beneficiary does not satisfy the conditions for eligibility include a 
situation in which a contract which was valid at the time of the assessment of the 
conditions for eligibility is cancelled with retroactive effect in accordance with 
APIA – CENTRUL JUDEȚEAN BISTRIȚA-NĂSĂUD 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
national legislation, regardless of the time at which that cancellation occurs, or 
does it not include such a situation? 
2. If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, can the principle of 
proportionality apply with regard to the withdrawal of payment under 
Article 63(1) of [Regulation No 1306/2013] or not?’ 
[…] [stay of proceedings, procedural provisions] 
[…] 
[procedure, signatures]