- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-169/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 4 March 2022 — Groenland Poultry SRL, in liquidation v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dâmbovița
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0169
62022CN0169
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
7.6.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 222/14
(Case C-169/22)
(2022/C 222/25)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant — appellant: Groenland Poultry SRL, in liquidation
Defendant — respondent: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dâmbovița
Questions referred
1.Must 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) (1) be interpreted as meaning that cases of ‘force majeure or exceptional circumstances’ also include the case where the beneficiary of the aid loses the right to use the leased assets following the termination of the lease on account of the insolvency of the owner of the leased assets (lessor)?
2.In the light of the principle of proportionality, must Article 44(2)(a) 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) be interpreted as meaning that, where, during the period for which a commitment given as a condition for the grant of assistance runs, all or part of the holding of a beneficiary is transferred to another person, and that second beneficiary, although having honoured a significant part of the commitment concerned, ceases agricultural activities, and it is not feasible for a successor to take over the commitment, the second beneficiary of the commitment [more correctly: of the aid] must reimburse the aid which it has received (in relation to the period for which it was the beneficiary of the aid), or must it also reimburse the aid received by the first beneficiary thereof?
3.What conditions must the national court take into consideration in interpreting Article 44(2)(a) 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) for the purpose of assessing whether ‘it is not feasible for a successor to take over the commitment?
* Language of the case: Romanian.
(1) OJ 2006 L 368, p. 15.