Case C-434/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2012 — ‘Slancheva sila’ EOOD v Izpalnitelnen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia
Date: 2012-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, aid recipient, fraud against the EU, rural development, terms for aid








C_2012366EN.01002602.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/26





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2012 — ‘Slancheva sila’ EOOD v Izpalnitelnen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia
(Case C-434/12)
2012/C 366/47
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Slancheva sila’ EOOD

Defendant: Izpalnitelnen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia

Questions referred







1.


How is the concept ‘artificially created conditions’ to be interpreted in the light of the provision contained in Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011? (1)











2.


Is Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011 to be interpreted as being incompatible with Article 7(2) of the Bulgarian Regulation No 29 of 11 August 2008, according to which financial aid is not to be granted to applicants/beneficiaries who are found to be functionally dependent and/or who have artificially created the conditions required for obtaining aid, with a view to obtaining an advantage contrary to the objectives of the measure?










3.


Is Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011 to be interpreted as being incompatible with the case-law in the Republic of Bulgaria, according to which the conditions required for obtaining an advantage contrary to the objectives of the measure have been artificially created if there is a legal connection between the applicants?










4.


Does the use by different applicants who are independent legal persons of independent neighbouring sites which were part of a single property before the application was submitted, and does the actual connection that is found to exist, for example applicants having the same agents, suppliers, executives, place of business and address, constitute ‘artificially created conditions’?










5.


Is it necessary to establish that there is deliberate coordination between the applicants and/or a third party with a view to obtaining an advantage for a specific applicant?










6.


What constitutes an advantage within the meaning of Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011, in particular, does it include drawing up several smaller investment proposals with a view to a specific applicant receiving funding for each of them at the maximum rate of EUR 200 000 even if they were submitted by various different applicants?










7.


Is Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011 to be interpreted as calling into question the case-law in the Republic of Bulgaria, according to which the provision in fact requires that the following three cumulative conditions be met: 1. that there be functional dependence and/or artificially created conditions for obtaining aid, 2. that this be intended to obtain an advantage, and 3. that it be contrary to the objectives of the measure?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2011 L 25, p. 8).