Case C-600/25, Ministerstvo na zemedelieto i hranite and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 September 2025 – M.P.M. v Ministerstvo na zemedelieto i hranite, Darzhaven fond Zemedelie – Sofia, Varhoven administrativen sad
Date: 2025-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, damages, infringement of EU law, judicial review, preliminary ruling procedure, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid, tenant farming








C_202506496EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6496


15.12.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 September 2025 – M.P.M. v Ministerstvo na zemedelieto i hranite, Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ – Sofia, Varhoven administrativen sad


(Case C-600/25, Ministerstvo na zemedelieto i hranite and Others)

(C/2025/6496)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: M.P.M.

Respondents on a point of law: Ministerstvo na zemedelieto i hranite, Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ – Sofia, Varhoven administrativen sad

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the cases of ‘force majeure or exceptional circumstances’ also include a case in which an aid beneficiary loses the right to use leased assets forming part of State land estates because his lease agreement is terminated as a result of a legislative amendment which came into force after he had entered into a multi-year commitment and imposed a new condition on his use of those parcels of land, and he has taken all of the measures he could have taken without making an excessive sacrifice to bring the lease agreement concerned into line with the newly introduced condition?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is there a manifest infringement of EU law by national administrative authorities and courts which have drawn opposing conclusions in fact and in law and have as a result refused to exempt the beneficiary from the obligation to reimburse the aid received? Is it material to the answer to this question that the case-law established by the court of last instance in similar cases is contradictory?










3.


Can there be a manifest infringement of EU law in the case where the court deciding on the award of compensation finds that the national court having given final judgment made an incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence and that incorrect assessment led to a completely incorrect factual conclusion concerning the most important legally significant fact? In proceedings such as those in the main case, is it permissible for the court deciding on the award of compensation to review the correctness of the final judgment, including, in the course of so doing, the assessment of the facts and evidence which formed the basis of the factual and legal conclusions of the national court that delivered the judgment from which the alleged damage is said to arise?










4.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the present case, in the light of recital 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (2) and the principle of legal certainty, involve a manifest infringement of EU law by a national court which has delivered a final judgment and refused to submit a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 2[(2)] of that regulation?










5.


Is there a serious infringement of EU law in the case where an administrative authority, when adopting a national measure of secondary legislation transposing a provision of EU law containing a non-exhaustive list of cases of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, confined the corresponding list provided by way of example to only some of the cases referred to in the provision of EU law?










6.


If the fifth question is answered in the affirmative, is there a direct causal link between the infringement and the damage caused to the beneficiary in the present case where the damage occurred as an indirect result of the interpretation of the measure of secondary legislation by other administrative authorities and courts?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2006 L 368 p. 15).

(2)  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 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6496/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)