Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

C/2024/1662

(Case C-656/22, (1) Askos Properties)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Rural development support measures - Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 - Lease or letting agreement - Lease agreement concluded between a municipal authority and an aid beneficiary - Commitments over five years - Termination of the lease agreement further to a legislative amendment - Obligation to reimburse the aid received in part or in full - Not possible to adapt those commitments to a new situation for the holding - Definition of ‘force majeure’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ - Definition of ‘expropriation of the holding’)

(C/2024/1662)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Askos Properties EOOD

Respondent: Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 47(1) of 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), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 434/2007 of 20 April 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the termination, by a municipal authority, of a lease or letting agreement relating to agricultural land and concluded for a period of five years with the beneficiary of agricultural aid, which has been granted in the context of a Member State’s rural development programmes to which the EAFRD has contributed part of the financing, and which termination arises further to an amendment to national legislation introducing new requirements governing the maintenance of such agreements, can constitute

—‘force majeure’ or ‘exceptional circumstances’, within the meaning of Article 47(1), where that termination constitutes abnormal and unforeseeable events outside the control of that beneficiary, and the latter has taken all possible steps, without making unreasonable sacrifices, to bring the lease agreement concerned into line with the new requirements introduced,

—‘expropriation of the holding’, within the meaning of Article 47(1)(c), where that termination constitutes a measure involving deprivation of property which deprives that beneficiary of the right to use the leased agricultural land and the right to collect the revenue from it.

2.Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006, as amended by Regulation No 434/2007, must be interpreted as not applying to a situation in which the beneficiary of agricultural aid is unable to continue to honour the commitments given as a result of the termination, by a municipal authority, of the lease or letting agreement relating to agricultural land, concluded for a term of five years with that beneficiary, which termination occurs further to an amendment to national legislation introducing new requirements, pursuant to which that beneficiary is required to have a livestock facility and to declare a certain number of livestock units to the competent national authorities, compliance with which is a condition for maintaining such an agreement.

(1) OJ C 7, 9.1.2023

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1662/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

* * *