1.

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006. ( 2 ) Before being repealed, ( 3 ) that provision set out the financial consequences for a beneficiary of agri-environment payments where a reparcelling or a land-consolidation measure took place on his or her holding during the period of commitment under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). ( 4 )

2.

The request has been made in proceedings between a Bulgarian farmer and the Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ (Deputy Executive Director of the State Agricultural Fund; ‘the respondent authority’). The proceedings relate to an appeal against an administrative decision requiring reimbursement of part of the payment received by that farmer, due to his inability to comply with the commitment given under the EAFRD to ensure the use of the whole area of land originally declared for five consecutive years.

3.

The present case requires the interpretation of the terms ‘reparcelling’ and ‘land-consolidation measures’ within the meaning of Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 in order to ascertain whether a situation such as that of the main proceedings falls within the scope of that provision. If that is answered in the affirmative, it must be determined whether, in the absence of necessary measures adopted by the Member State, the inability of the beneficiary to continue to comply with commitments given for the agri-environment payments constitutes a circumstance that justifies the non-reimbursement of the funds previously received.

4.

Article 4 of Regulation No 1698/2005, entitled ‘Objectives’, provides:

‘1.   Support for rural development shall contribute to achieving the following objectives:

…’

5.

Article 36 of Regulation No 1698/2005, under the heading ‘Measures’, provides:

‘Support under this section shall concern:

…

…’

6.

Article 39 of Regulation No 1698/2005, entitled ‘Agri-environment payments’, states:

‘1.   Member States shall make available support provided for in Article 36(a)(iv) throughout their territories, in accordance with their specific needs.

2.   Agri-environment payments shall be granted to farmers who make on a voluntary basis agri-environmental commitments. Where duly justified to achieve environmental objectives, agri-environment payments may be granted to other land managers.

3.   Agri-environment payments cover only those commitments going beyond the relevant mandatory standards established pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 of and Annexes III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as well as minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection product use and other relevant mandatory requirements established by national legislation and identified in the programme.

These commitments shall be undertaken as a general rule for a period between five and seven years. Where necessary and justified, a longer period shall be determined according to the procedure referred to in Article 90(2) for particular types of commitments.

…’

7.

Recitals 23 and 37 of Regulation No 1974/2006 state:

…

8.

Article 44 of that regulation provides:

‘1.   Where all or part of a holding of the beneficiary is transferred to another person during the period for which a commitment given as a condition for the grant of assistance runs, that other person may take over the commitment for the remainder of the period. If the commitment is not taken over, the beneficiary shall reimburse the assistance granted.

2.   Member States may choose not to require the reimbursement referred to in paragraph 1 in the following cases:

…

3.   In the event of minor changes to the situation of a holding, Member States may take specific measures to ensure that the application of paragraph 1 does not lead to inappropriate results as regards the commitment entered into.

A reduction in the area of the holding of up to 10% of the area under commitment shall be considered as a minor change for the purpose of the first subparagraph.’

9.

Article 45 of Regulation No 1974/2006 provides:

‘1.   When a beneficiary increases the area of the holding during the period for which a commitment given as a condition for the grant of assistance runs, Member States may provide for the commitment to be extended to cover the additional area for the remainder of the period of the commitment in accordance with paragraph 2, or for the original commitment to be replaced by a new one in accordance with paragraph 3.

Provision may also be made for such replacement in cases where the area covered by a commitment within a holding is extended.

2.   The extension referred to in paragraph 1 may be granted only under the following conditions:

…

3.   The new commitment referred to in paragraph 1 shall cover the whole area concerned under terms at least as strict as those of the original commitment.

4.   Where a beneficiary is unable to continue to comply with commitments given because the holding is reparcelled or is the subject of public land-consolidation measures or of land-consolidation measures approved by the competent public authorities, Member States shall take the measures necessary to allow the commitments to be adapted to the new situation of the holding. If such adaptation proves impossible, the commitment shall expire and reimbursement shall not be required in respect of the period in which the commitment was effective.’

10.

Article 18 of Regulation No 65/2011, entitled ‘Reductions and exclusions in the case of non-compliance with other eligibility criteria, commitments and linked obligations’, provides:

‘1.   The aid claimed shall be reduced or refused where the following obligations and criteria are not met:

…

In case of multiannual commitments, aid reductions, exclusions and recoveries shall also apply to the amounts already paid in the previous years for that commitment.

2.   The Member State shall recover and/or refuse the support or determine the amount of the reduction of the aid, in particular on the basis of the severity, extent and permanent nature of the non-compliance found.

The severity of the non-compliance shall depend, in particular, on the importance of the consequences of the non-compliance, taking into account the objectives of the criteria that were not met.

The extent of the non-compliance shall depend, in particular, on its effect on the operation as a whole.

Whether the non-compliance is of a permanent nature shall depend, in particular, on the length of time for which the effect lasts or the possibility of terminating this effect by reasonable means.

3.   If the non-compliance results from irregularities committed intentionally, the beneficiary shall be excluded from the measure in question both for the calendar year of finding and for the following calendar year.’

11.

Article 37c of the Zakon za sobstvenostta i polzvaneto na zemedelskite zemi (Law on the ownership and use of agricultural land) ( 5 ) provides:

‘1.   Groupings for the use of agricultural land shall be created by an agreement between the owners and/or the users. The conclusion of the agreement shall be overseen by a commission for each locality in the territory of the municipality, set up by an order of the Director of the District Directorate “Agriculture” by 5 August of the relevant year. …

2.   The agreement shall be concluded in accordance with a model established by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, … The agreement shall be concluded and updated each year by 30 August for the following financial year within the meaning of Paragraph 2(3) of the Supplementary Provisions of the Zakon za arendata v zemedelieto [(Law on Agricultural Leasing)]. It may not encompass properties declared for farming within their real boundaries and properties that are permanently used as pastures, grasslands and meadows. The agreement shall take effect provided that it covers at least two thirds of the total surface area of the land use groupings in the relevant locality.

3.   Where the users cannot reach an agreement in the circumstances set out in paragraph 1, and also as regards the land not covered by the agreement, the commission shall draw up a draft allocation of land use by groupings by 15 September of the relevant year in the following manner:

4.   The commission shall prepare a report for the Director of the District Directorate “Agriculture”, which contains the agreement concluded, the allocation of the land groupings, information on the land referred to in paragraph 3, point 2, with regard to their owners and the payment of rents due, on the basis of which the Director of the District Directorate “Agriculture” shall issue an order for the allocation of the groupings in the locality before 1 October of the relevant year.

…

14.   The agreement for the creation of land use groupings or the allocation of the land use groupings shall constitute a legal basis for the purposes of the Zakon za podpomagane na zemedelskite proizvoditeli [(Law on Support for Farmers)], and, in the part concerning the land referred to in paragraph 3, it shall constitute a legal basis provided that a payment for that land has been made.

15.   Agricultural land included in land use groupings and approved for support under measure ‘Agri-environment payments’ of the Rural Development Programme for the period 2007-2013 and/or under measure ‘Agri-environment-climate’ and ‘Organic farming’ of the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 shall be allocated without changing the locations of the persons approved under the measure where:

12.

PV, the applicant in the main proceedings, is a farmer who submitted an aid application under ‘Measure 214 – Agri-environment payments of the 2007-2013 Rural Development Programme’ (‘Measure 214’).

13.

The application was approved and PV entered into a five-year agri-environmental commitment under that measure. One of the conditions that PV undertook was to carry out the activities specified in the application on the same agricultural area for five consecutive years.

14.

That area consisted of 857 ha of agricultural land, which was used by PV from 2012 on the basis of agreements adopted pursuant to Article 37c of the Law on the ownership and use of agricultural land. In essence, that provision allowed agreements to be concluded for each financial year between the owners and the users of agricultural land situated nearby in order to establish land groupings. Under Bulgarian law, the agreement on the establishment of land groupings or the subdivision thereof was considered to be a valid legal basis for aid for the farmers who used them.

15.

PV participated, with land leased by him, in the groupings established in that manner for the financial years 2012/2013, 2013/2014, 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. During those years, all the mandatory administrative controls and on-the-spot checks were carried out on his holding, and amounts totalling 1063 317.54 leva (BGN) were paid pursuant to his payment applications under Measure 214.

16.

For the 2016/2017 financial year, however, no agreement was reached on the use of all the land declared by PV. Although PV wished to enter into such an agreement under Article 37c of the Law on the ownership and use of agricultural land, the other participants to the previous agreements informed him that they wished to cultivate the agricultural land within the actual boundaries of their properties. In that context, PV was prevented from exploiting the agricultural land engaged since 2012 and from complying with the commitment given in order to receive agri-environment payments. ( 6 )

17.

On 29 May 2017, PV gave notification of the termination of his agri-environmental commitment to the Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ (State Agricultural Fund) in Targovishte. That notification took place almost 10 months after PV had become aware that he would not be entitled to use, in the 2016/2017 financial year, part of the land which was the basis for his commitment under Measure 214, and eight months after the expiry of the last agreement.

18.

On 17 August 2018, PV was informed of the termination of his agri-environmental commitment under Measure 214, on the basis of his failure to comply with the applicable conditions. That decision was not contested by PV and became final.

19.

As a result, on 14 November 2018, the respondent authority initiated proceedings for the issuance of an administrative decision establishing a public debt (Akt za Ustanovyavane na Publichno Darzhavno Vsemane; ‘the contested decision’), claiming from PV reimbursement of 20% of the subsidy paid under the respective measure for the 2012-2016 campaigns, together with statutory interest.

20.

On appeal, the administrative court of first instance found that the aid granted had been lawfully reduced and that, in the present case, there was no force majeure within the meaning of Article 31 of Regulation No 73/2009. ( 7 ) That court therefore dismissed PV’s action against the contested decision.

21.

The Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria), which is hearing the appeal in cassation against the judgment delivered at first instance, takes the view that the resolution of the dispute requires an interpretation of EU law. More specifically, it observes that Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 refers to three specific cases where a beneficiary of agri-environment payments is not obliged to reimburse support measures previously received. Those cases would be (i) when the holding of his or her agricultural activities is reparcelled, (ii) when the holding is subject to public land-consolidation measures, or (iii) when the holding is subject to land-consolidation measures approved by the competent public authorities. That court notes that, if the present case were to be subsumed under one of the cases described by that provision, the legal consequences of the termination of the agri-environmental commitment would not include an obligation to reimburse all or part of the aid received.

22.

It is in those circumstances that the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court) has decided to stay the proceedings and to refer, inter alia, the following two questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

…’

23.

In line with the Court’s request, the present Opinion treats the questions by which the referring court asks, in essence, whether a case such as that of the main proceedings constitutes a ‘reparcelling’ or a ‘land-consolidation measure’ within the meaning of Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 (first question) and, in the affirmative, whether the failure by a Member State to adopt the measures necessary to allow the beneficiary’s commitments to be adapted to the new situation of the holding entitles him or her to refuse to reimburse the funds received (second question).

24.

As a preliminary point, it is important to recall that, during the period covered by the facts in the main proceedings, Regulation No 1698/2005 was the legislation in force governing EU support for rural development financed by the EAFRD. ( 8 ) That regulation laid down the general rules for the grant of aid for agricultural practices aimed at improving the environment and rural areas. ( 9 )

25.

In particular, Regulation No 1698/2005 listed agri-environment payments among the measures intended to promote the sustainable use of agricultural land. ( 10 ) Those payments were aid accorded annually to farmers, in addition to other agricultural payments, provided that those farmers undertook voluntary commitments encouraging the sustainable use of agricultural land. ( 11 ) The commitments were required to go beyond the relevant mandatory standards of EU agricultural legislation, as well as the particular requirements established by the legislation of the Member States. ( 12 )

26.

As the European Commission explains, an essential feature of agri-environment payments was that they implied, as a general rule, commitments to be undertaken by farmers for a period of at least five years. ( 13 ) Assuming that short-duration engagements reduced the positive impact of those payments, the requirement of a multiannual commitment was intended to encourage farmers to use their land for a period deemed necessary to achieve beneficial effects for environmental sustainability.

27.

That is the reason why Regulation No 1974/2006, when laying down the detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1698/2005, addressed, among other relevant elements, the vicissitudes that could occur during the five-year period of commitment undertaken by the farmers under the EAFRD. ( 14 ) More specifically, Regulation No 1974/2006 defined the obligations of Member States and beneficiaries of agri-environment payments in cases of change of ownership and/or use of the holding, by means of a transfer, ( 15 ) or in cases of change of the size of that holding, either by enlarging it or reducing it. ( 16 )

28.

I observe that the case at issue in the main proceedings falls within that second category, inasmuch as a farmer who had committed to exploiting a specific area of agricultural land found himself, in the last year of commitment under the EAFRD, unable to exploit the whole area originally declared in his application under Measure 214. As the referring court indicates, Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 thus becomes the key provision to determine the financial consequences for a farmer in such circumstances.

29.

That article, while in force, ( 17 ) governed situations in which a beneficiary of agri-environment payments would be prevented from carrying out the commitment given to exploit the same area of land during five consecutive years because of (i) the reparcelling of the holding concerned, (ii) the adoption of public land-consolidation measures over that holding or (iii) the approval of land-consolidation measures by competent public authorities over the same holding.

30.

In those three scenarios, if the Member State did not take the measures necessary to allow the commitments to be adapted to the new situation of the holding, then the beneficiary of the agri-environment payments would not be required to reimburse the assistance received in respect of the period in which the commitment was effective.

31.

It is important to point out that Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 introduced a singular exception to the general rule applicable to situations where beneficiaries of agri-environment payments did not fulfil the commitments given under the EAFRD. Indeed, non-compliance with eligibility criteria, commitments or linked obligations would normally trigger reductions, exclusions and recoveries of the support granted. ( 18 ) In the case of multiannual commitments, those reductions, exclusions and recoveries would also apply to amounts already paid in previous years in respect of a certain commitment. ( 19 )

32.

In the present case, by contrast, if the impossibility to honour the commitment to exploit the same area of land for a period of five years were to be considered the direct consequence of a reparcelling or a land-consolidation measure, within the meaning of Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006, the farmer concerned in the main proceedings could be dispensed from reimbursing part of the payments received in previous years, provided that the national authorities had not adopted the necessary measures to adapt the farmer’s commitment to the new context.

33.

I must highlight that EU legislation does not define the concept of ‘reparcelling’, nor the concept of ‘land-consolidation measure’. Nevertheless, it is clear that both terms refer to legal instruments the concrete definition, typology and requirements of which vary among the Member States. ( 20 )

34.

In those circumstances, according to settled case-law, it is necessary to provide Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 with an independent and uniform interpretation through the European Union, considering not only its wording, but also its context and the objectives of the rules of which it is part. ( 21 )

35.

Regarding the wording of Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006, the term ‘reparcelling’ refers to measures consisting of the modification of the common boundaries of land parcels, usually with the aim of establishing larger holdings. Scholars define it as a tool for land readjustment, often used as a synonym of the terms ‘land reorganisation’, ‘land regrouping’, ‘land reallotment’, ‘land reconfiguration’ and ‘land redistribution’. ( 22 ) Given that reparcelling involves land exchange, a singular characteristic of that operation is that it requires the rearrangement of ownership and/or use not only in terms of parcels, but also in terms of rights. ( 23 ) Its objective is to give rise to more rational holdings, which can thus be managed more efficiently because of the location of the reconfigured parcels, their size or their shape.

36.

In turn, the term ‘land-consolidation’ encapsulates a broader concept. While in the past that term was regularly used as an equivalent of the term ‘reparcelling’, it is nowadays defined as a more comprehensive land reallocation procedure that is combined with the provision of public facilities for a defined rural area. ( 24 ) From that perspective, the concept of land-consolidation implies not only the rearrangement of fragmented land parcels, mainly through reparcelling, but also an agrarian special planning involving the provision of the necessary infrastructure – such as roads, irrigation systems, drainage systems, landscaping, environmental management, village renewal, soil conservation, etc. – for the land development concerned. ( 25 )

37.

It follows from the foregoing that, setting aside the specific features that characterise each type of measure, the terms ‘reparcelling’ and ‘land-consolidation’ resulting from Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 refer to operations aimed at the readjustment and rearrangement of fragmented land parcels, usually applied to form more rational land holdings in order to improve rural infrastructure and to implement development and environmental policies.

38.

I would like to emphasize that, from the wording of Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006, it also results that ‘reparcelling’ and ‘land-consolidation’ were conceived, within the meaning of that provision, as measures which entailed an element of public intervention.

39.

That is manifest with respect to land-consolidation measures, which, pursuant to Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006, are required to be public in nature – which suggests a full involvement of competent public authorities in the design and adoption of those measures – or to be approved by those authorities.

40.

With respect to ‘reparcelling’, the English version of Regulation No 1974/2006 is not as apparent in that regard. However, the reading of other language versions, including the German and Spanish versions, leads to the consideration that the requirement of public intervention must also be present within that type of operation. ( 26 ) Indeed, those versions refer to reparcelling and ‘other public land-consolidation measures’, ( 27 ) a formulation that, as the Commission rightly points out, was even used in the English version of the provision that preceded Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006, namely, Article 38 of Regulation No 817/2004. ( 28 )

41.

The involvement of national authorities in the three scenarios indicated is further confirmed, in my view, by a contextual interpretation of Article 45 of Regulation No 1974/2006. As I have already noted, that provision did not merely govern situations where the size of the area of the agricultural land was reduced during the five-year period of commitment; it also governed situations where that area was extended, or even where the area engaged within a holding was enlarged. Yet, whereas cases concerning area extensions are described, in Article 45(1), (2) and (3) of Regulation No 1974/2006, as a consequence of voluntary action taken by the beneficiary, Article 45(4) of that same regulation refers to reductions in the area of agricultural land as a result of measures outside the beneficiary’s control, aimed in particular at supporting the public objective of improving agricultural structure.

42.

The consideration thereof does not nevertheless mean that public authority involvement must be present throughout all stages of the reparcelling or land-consolidation measure. Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 essentially speaks about adoption or approval, which then becomes an indication of the minimal public involvement required for a national measure to be considered as falling within the scope of that provision. For that same reason, Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 must be read as not excluding reparcelling and land-consolidation measures triggered by private initiatives or the use of concerted procedures, provided that public authorities retain, at the very least, final approval for those types of operation. ( 29 ) After all, public involvement in reparcelling operations or land-consolidation measures is ultimately justified on the necessity, for instance, to ensure respect for public objectives, the proper rearrangement of rights upon the land exchange and the implementation of those measures without being compromised by the disagreement of some of the owners or users concerned.

43.

Finally, from a teleological perspective, I think it is clear that Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 was put in place, as the Commission points out, in order to avoid penalising farmers when the reparcelling of a holding or a land-consolidation measure beyond their control prevented them from fulfilling the commitment under the EAFRD to exploit the same area of agricultural land for five consecutive years. Otherwise, farmers would feel deterred from entering into agri-environmental commitments, which, as explained, are relevant tools for the purposes of improving the land tenure structure, increasing the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and promoting land development in line with environmental and rural policies. In my view, that is ultimately the reason why Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 requires Member States to adjust the commitment to the new situation of the farm or, if such an adaptation is impossible, relieve the beneficiary of the obligation to repay the aid.

44.

With respect to the main proceedings, it is certainly for the national court to assess whether the procedure described in the national legislation at issue results in a reparcelling or a land-consolidation measure, thus falling within the scope of Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006.

45.

Nevertheless, it is apparent from the information shared in the order for reference, first, that, by the procedure laid down in that national legislation, owners and users can agree on the regrouping or reallocation of agricultural land. Even if not expressly stated, it is reasonable to assume, taking into account the facts of the present case, that those agreements are entered into in order to readjust holdings for land-efficiency purposes. Second, according to that legislation, the conclusion of the agreement is to be managed by a commission, situated in the territory of every municipality and appointed by decision of the competent regional directorate. That commission is also able to draw up a proposal for the regrouping of land where farmers fail to reach an agreement. Third, based on a report prepared and submitted by that commission, including inter alia the agreement reached, the director of the regional directorate of agriculture issues a decree for the allocation of land in the locality.

46.

In my view, national legislation such as the one at issue, which, on the one hand, is intended to promote land-regrouping agreements and, on the other, prescribes that for those agreements to be in force they need to be approved by the competent public authorities, must be considered, as the applicant contends, a reparcelling within the meaning of Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006. As already explained, the fact that such a reparcelling is based on voluntary agreements entered into by private owners or users and that those agreements do not entail a transfer of ownership rights does not call that conclusion into question, inasmuch as the element of public intervention rests on the final act of approval by the competent authority.

47.

The Republic of Bulgaria argues, in essence, that the agricultural land of the farmer in the main proceedings, in his last year of commitment, was not concerned by a reparcelling operation, but precisely by the non-reparcelling of the agricultural land originally engaged, since the parcels of land of the rest of the owners remained in their actual boundaries. It also considers, in line with the judgment delivered by the Bulgarian administrative court at first instance, that that farmer could not legitimately expect that the owners of those parcels of land would subsequently renew the agreements adopted under Article 37c of the Law on the ownership and use of agricultural land after the expiry of their one-year term. Consequently, according to the Republic of Bulgaria, by accepting to receive agri-environment payments based on the regime established by the national legislation, the farmer undertook the risk of failing to comply with his commitment, which would not be for the public authorities to assume.

48.

However, to my mind, first, it is evident that, with respect to the agricultural land that a farmer would be exploiting during a financial year, a reparcelling can be considered to have taken place as soon as the structure of that land is reconfigurated within the framework of a procedure that entails a public intervention. Moreover, a farmer who participates in the system of agri-environment payments by using reparcelled land, thus promoting the objectives set by EU legislation in terms of improvement of land structure and land development, must not be penalised when the absence of an agreement with the owners of that land prevents him from accumulating the whole area of land originally declared and, consequently, from fulfilling the commitment given under the EAFRD. The teleological considerations set out in point 43 of the present Opinion support that approach.

49.

Second, I would like to underline that, as the referring court points out in the order for reference, Article 45(4) of Regulation 1974/2006 does not set out concrete grounds for the reparcelling of the agricultural land initially declared which could result in the non-reimbursement of the funds previously received under the EARFD. That leads me to consider that the non-compliance with the commitment given to exploit the whole area of that land should be subject to an objective assessment, independent of the national legal basis on which the farmer commits him or herself under the EAFRD.

50.

Furthermore, the national legislation at issue expressly recognises the voluntary reparcelling of agricultural land as a valid legal basis for the application of financial aid under the EAFRD. That means that, by approving the application of agri-environment payments, the competent authorities endorse the legal instrument by which farmers define their engagements as compensation for the granting of those payments. In those circumstances, I do not share the view that the risk in a case such as that of the main proceedings ought to borne by the farmer.

51.

It results that none of the arguments put forward by the Republic of Bulgaria suffices to contradict the conclusion that national legislation such as that at issue should be considered to give rise to a reparcelling within the meaning of Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006.

52.

In the light of the foregoing, and having regard to the facts set out in the order for reference, I conclude that Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 should be interpreted as applying in a case such as that of the main proceedings if a farmer’s inability to fulfil his or her obligations under the EAFRD is due to a reparcelling approved by the competent public authorities affecting the structure of the farm, which it is for the referring court to verify.

53.

By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the failure by a Member State to adopt the measures necessary to allow the beneficiary’s commitments to be adapted to the new situation of the holding entitles him or her to refuse to reimburse the funds received.

54.

In that regard, it suffices to note that Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006 provides that if a beneficiary of agri-environment payments is unable to honour commitments given by virtue of the fact that his or her holding is reparcelled, Member States must take the necessary measures to enable commitments to be adapted to the new situation of the holding. If such adaptation proves impossible, the commitment must expire without reimbursement being required for the period during which the commitment was actually effective.

55.

As the referring court states in the order for reference, it would be necessary to assess, in the present case, whether or not the Member State concerned has adopted measures designed to adapt the beneficiary’s obligations, as required by Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006. However, since the beneficiary has been required to repay a certain percentage of the aid received for the period during which the commitment was in effect, it appears that such measures have not been adopted.

56.

If the Member State has not taken the measures necessary to adapt the beneficiary’s commitments to the new situation, it follows that the declaration of public debt requiring the recovery of part of the aid received during the first four years of the commitment is contrary to Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006.

57.

Therefore, Article 45(4) of Regulation 1974/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where the reduction of the area of the beneficiary’s holding, which makes compliance with the five-year agri-environmental commitment impossible, results from a reparcelling, the Member State is to take the measures necessary to enable the commitments to be adapted to the new situation of the farm. In the absence of such measures, the commitment expires without any reimbursement being required for the period during which the commitment was effective.

58.

On the basis of the analysis set out above, I propose that the Court answer the first two questions referred by the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria) as follows: