Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

8 September 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Direct support schemes – Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 – Article 20(1) – Identification system for agricultural parcels – Effective administration and control – Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 – Article 68 – Obligation on the farmer correctly to declare the areas and identify the parcel used and its boundaries – Reductions and exclusions in cases of overdeclaration – Exceptions – Concept of ‘factually correct information’ – State liability for loss or damage caused to individuals by the infringement of EU law – Infringement attributable to a national court ruling at last instance – No provision intended to confer rights on individuals )

In Case C‑163/24,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania), made by decision of 21 December 2023, received at the Court on 1 March 2024, in the proceedings

BX

v

Statul Român – Ministerul Finanţelor Publice,

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President, T. von Danwitz, Vice-President, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe, M.L. Arastey Sahún, J. Passer and F. Schalin, Presidents of Chambers, S. Rodin, E. Regan, D. Gratsias, M. Gavalec (Rapporteur), Z. Csehi, S. Gervasoni, N. Fenger and R. Frendo, Judges,

Advocate General: A. Rantos,

Registrar: R. Şereş, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 May 2025,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        BX, by himself, and by I. Kis, avocate,

–        the Romanian Government, by E. Gane, L. Ghiță and L. Lițu, acting as Agents,

–        the European Commission, by A.C. Becker and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 October 2025,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 20(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1009/2008 of 9 October 2008 (OJ 2008 L 276, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 1782/2003’), and of Article 68(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 381/2007 of 4 April 2007 (OJ 2007 L 95, p. 8) (‘Regulation No 796/2004’).

2        The request has been made in proceedings between BX (a farmer), on the one hand, and the Statul Român – Ministerul Finanţelor Publice (Romanian State, represented by the Ministry of Public Finances) and the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania), on the other, seeking to trigger the liability of that Member State because of the infringement by that court of Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 and Article 68 of Regulation No 796/2004, as well as the failure by that court to fulfil the obligation, laid down in the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

 Legal context

 European Union law

 The FEU Treaty

3        Article 267 TFEU provides:

‘The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning:

(a)      the interpretation of the Treaties;

(b)      the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union;

Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.

Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court.

…’

 Regulation No 1782/2003

4        Regulation No 1782/2003, which was applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, stated, in recitals 11 and 13 to 16 thereof:

‘(11)      In order to improve the effectiveness and usefulness of the administration and control mechanisms, it is necessary to adapt the system established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes [(OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1)] …

…

(13)      The various components of the integrated [administration and control] system are aimed at a more effective administration and control. …

(14)      Given the complexity of the system and the large number of aid applications to be processed, it is essential to use the appropriate technical resources and administration and control methods. As a result, the integrated system should comprise, in each Member State, a computerised data base, an identification system for agricultural parcels, aid applications from farmers, a harmonised control system and, in the single payment scheme, a system for the identification and recording of payment entitlements.

(15)      To enable the data collected to be processed and used for the verification of aid applications, it is necessary to set up high-performance computerised data bases which make it possible in particular to carry out cross-checks.

(16)      The identification of agricultural parcels is a key element in the correct application of schemes linked to surface area. Experience has shown that the existing methods have certain deficiencies. Therefore, provision should be made for an identification system to be set up, where necessary, with the aid of remote sensing.’

5        Articles 13 to 16 of that regulation concerned an advisory system regarding land and farm management, known as ‘the farm advisory system’.

6        Article 17 of Regulation No 1782/2003, entitled ‘Scope’, provided, in the first paragraph thereof:

‘Each Member State shall set up an integrated administration and control system, hereinafter referred to as the “integrated system”.’

7        Article 18 of that regulation, entitled ‘Elements of the integrated system’, provided, in point (b) of paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The integrated system shall comprise the following elements:

…

(b)      an identification system for agricultural parcels’.

8        Article 19 of Regulation No 1782/2003, entitled ‘Computerised data base’, specified, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The computerised data base shall record, for each agricultural holding, the data obtained from aid applications.

This data base shall, in particular, allow direct and immediate consultation, through the competent authority of the Member State, of the data relating to the calendar and/or marketing years starting from the year 2000 and, for aid granted under Chapter 10b of Title IV, from 1 May 1998.’

9        Article 20 of that regulation, entitled ‘Identification system for agricultural parcels’, provided, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The identification system for agricultural parcels shall be established on the basis of maps or land registry documents or other cartographic references. Use shall be made of computerised geographical information system techniques including preferably aerial or spatial orthoimagery, with a homogenous standard guaranteeing accuracy at least equivalent to cartography at a scale of 1:10 000.’

10      Under Article 21 of Regulation No 1782/2003, entitled ‘System for the identification and registration of payment entitlements’:

‘1.      The system for the identification and registration of payment entitlements shall be set up allowing verification of entitlements and cross-checks with the aid applications and the identification system for agricultural parcels.

2.      This system shall allow direct and immediate consultation, through the competent authority of the Member State, of the data relating to at least the previous three consecutive calendar and/or marketing years.’

11      Article 22 of that regulation, entitled ‘Aid applications’, was worded as follows:

‘1.      Each year, a farmer shall submit an application for direct payments subject to the integrated system, indicating, where applicable:

–        all agricultural parcels of the holding,

…

2.      A Member State may decide that the aid application needs to contain only changes with respect to the aid application submitted the previous year. A Member State shall distribute pre-printed forms based on the areas determined in the previous year and supply graphic material indicating the location of those areas and, where appropriate, the positioning of olive trees.

…’

12      Article 23 of Regulation No 1782/2003, entitled ‘Verification of eligibility conditions’, specified, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘Member States shall carry out administrative checks on the aid applications including a verification of the eligible area and the corresponding payment entitlements.’

 Regulation No 796/2004

13      Regulation No 796/2004, which was applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, stated, in recitals 13 and 55 thereof:

‘(13)      For the sake of effective controls, any kind of area use and of the aid schemes concerned should be declared at the same time. Provision should, therefore, be made for submission of a single aid application comprising any applications for aid which are in some way related to area.

…

(55)      To protect the Community’s financial interests effectively adequate measures should be adopted to combat irregularities and fraud. Separate provisions should be made in cases of irregularities found with regard to eligibility criteria for the different aid schemes concerned.’

14      Article 2 of that regulation, entitled ‘Definitions’, provided, in point 22 thereof:

‘For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

…

(22)      “Area determined”: shall mean the area for which all conditions laid down in the rules for granting the aid have been met; in the case of the single payment scheme, the area declared may be deemed as being determined only if it is actually being accompanied by a corresponding number of payment entitlements’.

15      Article 12 of Regulation No 796/2004, entitled ‘Contents of the single application’, indicated, in point (d) of paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The single application shall contain all information necessary to establish eligibility for the aid, in particular:

…

(d)      particulars permitting identification of all agricultural parcels on the holding, their area expressed in hectares to two decimal places, their location and, where applicable, their use and whether the agricultural parcel is irrigated’.

16      Article 15 of that regulation, entitled ‘Amendments to the single applications’, provided, in paragraph 3 thereof:

‘Where the competent authority has already informed the farmer of irregularities in the single application or where it has given notice to the farmer of its intention to carry out an on-the-spot check and where that on-the-spot check reveals irregularities, amendments in accordance with paragraph 1 shall not be authorised in respect of the agricultural parcels affected by the irregularities.’

17      Under Article 22 of Regulation No 796/2004, entitled ‘Withdrawal of aid applications’:

‘1.      An aid application may be totally or partially withdrawn at any time in writing.

…

However, where the competent authority has already informed the farmer of irregularities in the aid application or where the competent authority has given notice to the farmer of its intention to carry out an on-the-spot check and where that on-the-spot check reveals irregularities, withdrawals shall not be authorised in respect of the parts of the aid application affected by the irregularities.

2.      Withdrawals in accordance with paragraph 1 shall put the claimant into the position he was in before he submitted the aid application or part of the aid application in question.’

18      Article 24 of that regulation, entitled ‘Cross-checks’, specified, in point (c) of paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The administrative checks referred to in Article 23 of [Regulation No 1782/2003] shall permit the detection of irregularities, in particular the automated detection using computerised means, including cross-checks:

…

(c)      between the agricultural parcels as declared in the single application and the reference parcels as contained in the identification system for agricultural parcels to verify the eligibility for aid of the areas as such;

…’

19      Article 51 of Regulation No 796/2004, entitled ‘Reductions and exclusions in cases of overdeclaration’, provided, in essence, in paragraph 1 thereof, that, if the difference found between the area declared and the area determined in accordance with that regulation was more than 20% of the area determined, no ‘area-linked’ aid was to be granted for the crop group concerned.

20      Article 68 of that regulation, entitled ‘Exceptions from the application of reductions and exclusions’, specified, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The reductions and exclusions provided for in Chapter I shall not apply where the farmer submitted factually correct information or where he can show otherwise that he is not at fault.’

 Regulation No 1973/2004

21      Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that Regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials (OJ 2004 L 345, p. 1) included an Article 138, entitled ‘Reductions and exclusions in respect of eligibility conditions’. According to the first and second subparagraphs of paragraph 1 of that article, where, as a result of an administrative or on-the-spot check, it was found that the established difference between the area declared and the area determined, within the meaning of point (22) of Article 2 of Regulation No 796/2004, was between 30% and 50% of the area determined, no aid was to be granted for the year in question.

 Romanian law

22      Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 125 pentru aprobarea schemelor de plăți directe și plăți naționale directe complementare, care se acordă în agricultură începând cu anul 2007, și pentru modificarea articolului 2 din Legea nr. 36/1991 privind societățile agricole și alte forme de asociere în agricultură (Government Emergency Order No 125 approving direct payment schemes and complementary national direct payments granted in the agriculture sector from 2007 onwards, and amending Article 2 of Law No 36/1991 on agricultural companies and other forms of agricultural associations) of 21 December 2006 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 1043 of 29 December 2006), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings [(‘Government Emergency Order No 125/2006’)], provided, in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) thereof:

‘In order to be eligible for the grant of payments under the single area payment schemes, applicants must be entered in the Register of Farmers managed by the Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (Payments and Intervention Agency for Agriculture, Romania), lodge their applications for payments within the deadline, and satisfy the following general conditions:

…

(b)      all the agricultural parcels must be declared;

(c)      true, complete and fully valid data must be provided in the direct area payment application form and attached documents, including the list of areas, failing which penalties may be imposed under criminal law;

…’

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

23      On 14 May 2007, BX, a Romanian farmer, sent the Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură – Centrul Județean Argeș (Payments and Intervention Agency for Agriculture – Argeș County Centre, Romania) (‘APIA Argeș’) an application, in respect of the year 2007, under the single area payment and less-favoured agricultural areas schemes. That application referred to a total agricultural area of 264.71 hectares (ha), divided into several parcels and including 129.09 ha in the commune of Rucăr; BX had determined and identified the respective areas using maps provided by APIA Argeș.

24      After finding, during an administrative check, that other persons had also applied for a single area payment in respect of certain areas declared by BX, APIA Argeș requested clarification from BX and the other persons concerned. Having determined the areas used by each of the farmers, BX and those persons indicated, on 28 November 2007, that BX was using only 45 ha of the 129.09 ha he had declared in his application concerning the commune of Rucăr.

25      On the same date, BX submitted Form M.1.1. ‘Amendment of the area declaration’ (‘Form M.1.1’) to APIA Argeș with a view to correcting the application he had made on 14 May 2007 in that regard. He also submitted a handwritten note in which he explained that the discrepancy between his initial declaration and his amended declaration was the result of (i) incorrect identification of the boundaries of the Găinațu Mic mountain (Romania), because of the lack of landmarks on the topographical maps provided by APIA Argeș, and (ii) the difference between the area indicated in the lease agreement for the parcels, on the one hand, and the sum of the areas of the two physical blocks of which that mountain was comprised, on the other.

26      By a decision of 28 May 2008, APIA Argeș took the view that BX’s initial area declaration of 264.71 ha exceeded the actual area, which was 180.62 ha, by 46.56% and, consequently, excluded his aid application pursuant to Article 138(1) of Regulation No 1973/2004.

27      BX brought an action before the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania) seeking, inter alia, the annulment of that decision, and requesting that APIA Argeș be ordered to pay him EUR 697 391 by way of compensation for the damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of the unlawful rejection of his aid application in respect of the year 2007. He argued that the overdeclaration of which he was accused was attributable to APIA Argeș, which had provided him with topographical maps that were insufficiently precise and did not comply with Article 20 of Regulation No 1782/2003. He claimed he was able to prove this by means of documents, witness statements, and a topographical survey. Failing any fault on his part, no reduction of or exclusion from the aid should have been applied to him, in accordance with Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004.

28      That court dismissed that action by a judgment of 20 January 2011. BX brought an appeal against that judgment before the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest).

29      By an order of 2 April 2012, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest), in the first place, refused BX’s request that the Court of Justice be questioned as to the interpretation of Article 68 of Regulation No 796/2004, on the ground that the elements being put forward by him did not require a reference for a preliminary ruling to be made under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU.

30      In the second place, by a decision of 9 April 2012, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest), ruling at last instance, dismissed BX’s appeal as unfounded. It considered that the decision of 28 May 2008 was justified having regard to Article 138(1) of Regulation No 1973/2004, given than BX had overdeclared the area he was using, something which he had admitted when filing Form M.1.1.

31      In that regard, that court held, first, that it fell to the user of a parcel to state the actual area of that parcel in the aid application without relying on the area shown on the deeds of ownership for that parcel. The inaccuracy of the maps provided by APIA Argeș cannot therefore be relied upon as justification for BX’s overdeclaration of the areas used by him, having regard, inter alia, to the obligation laid down in Article 7(1)(c) of Government Emergency Order No 125/2006 to provide true, complete and fully valid data in the direct area payment application form, failing which penalties may be imposed under criminal law.

32      Second, as both the initial declaration and the declaration amending the areas contained in Form M.1.1. were made on the basis of the same maps provided by APIA Argeș, the overdeclaration cannot be justified on the basis of any errors by which those maps may be vitiated. The inaccuracies of those maps could not, in any event, be relied upon to justify an overdeclaration of area by 46.56%.

33      Third, the submission of Form M.1.1. had to be regarded as a request for partial withdrawal of an area, to which Article 22 of Regulation No 796/2004 applied. As BX had submitted his request for withdrawal after receiving the request for clarification from APIA Argeș, Article 15(3) of that regulation precluded him from being exempted from the application of the penalties provided for in Article 51 thereof.

34      Fourth, BX’s situation was also not among the cases referred to in Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004. Indeed, BX had initially declared a total area of 264.71 ha, before making a request for withdrawal of an area of 84.09 ha, even though there had been no change of situation regarding the land. BX had therefore not submitted factually correct information.

35      Fifth, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest), taking the view that the rejection of the claim for damages stemmed not from an inability to prove the material damage, but from the rejection of the claim for annulment of the decision of 28 May 2008, did not consider that it was necessary to gather witness statements. It was likewise held that a topographical survey would not be useful, given that the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, Bucharest) had found an overdeclaration based on the withdrawal of areas by BX.

36      The extraordinary appeals brought by BX against the decision of the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) of 9 April 2012 were dismissed by that court as being inadmissible.

37      On 8 April 2013, BX brought an action before the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, Bucharest) requesting that the liability of the Romanian State be triggered in respect of the material and non-material damage caused by the infringement of EU law by the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) in its decision of 9 April 2012. He criticised the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) for (i) not having applied Article 20 of Regulation No 1782/2003 and Article 68 of Regulation No 796/2004 and (ii) having acted in breach of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU by not providing reasons for its refusal to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice.

38      By a judgment of 1 July 2016, the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, Bucharest) dismissed BX’s action as unfounded.

39      That court held, inter alia, that, unlike Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003, Article 68 of Regulation No 796/2004 conferred rights on individuals. It also held that the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) had acted in breach of the latter provision by (i) failing to determine the meaning of the terms ‘factually correct information’ contained therein, (ii) concluding that that provision did not apply to BX solely on the basis of the documents giving rise to APIA Argeș’ decision and thus ignoring the other documents produced by BX, and (iii) failing to give BX the opportunity to prove by any means of evidence that he had not been guilty of overdeclaration.

40      Nevertheless, on the basis of the criteria set out in paragraphs 55 and 56 of the judgment of 30 September 2003, Köbler (C‑224/01, EU:C:2003:513), the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, Bucharest) considered that the infringement of EU law by the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) was not manifest.

41      In that regard, the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, Bucharest) noted, inter alia, first, that Article 68 of Regulation No 796/2004 was clear inasmuch as it governs the right of the farmer to be exempted from the penalty of reduction of the aid or exclusion from the entitlement in the two situations referred to therein.

42      Second, the fact that the European Commission has alleged, on a number of occasions, including in an investigation relating to shortcomings in the identification system for agricultural parcels which had to rely on a computerised geographical information system, that the Romanian legislation did not guarantee the effectiveness of administrative cross-checks cannot be sufficient to establish that the infringement of EU law is manifest.

43      Third, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) did not act in breach of EU law in a way that was intentional and inexcusable. Indeed, it set out the reasons why it considered, first, that it was not necessary to accept the additional evidence requested by BX and, second, that Article 68 of Regulation No 796/2004 did not apply to the dispute in the main proceedings.

44      Fourth and last, the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, Bucharest) noted that failure to comply with the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU cannot in itself trigger State liability, because that provision does not confer rights on individuals.

45      BX has brought an appeal against that judgment before the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest), which is the referring court. That court considers it necessary to question the Court of Justice as to (i) whether Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 confers rights on individuals, (ii) whether the concept of ‘factually correct information’ referred to in Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004 includes both the correct declaration of the areas by the farmer and the correct identification of the parcel used, that is to say, of its boundaries, and (iii) whether, in the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, the fact that the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) did not refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of that provision constitutes a manifest infringement of EU law which is such as to trigger the liability of the Romanian State.

46      In those circumstances, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) decided of its own motion to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Does Article 20(1) of [Regulation No 1782/2003] constitute a provision of EU law conferring specific rights on individuals, where infringement of those rights could give rise to State liability as a result of a decision of a national court of last instance?

(2)      Should the concept of “factually correct information” in Article 68(1) [of Regulation No 796/2004] be interpreted as including both the correct declaration of land areas by the farmer and the correct identification of the parcel of land used and its boundaries?

(3)      Given the circumstances of the case, does the failure of the national court of last instance to refer the matter to the [Court of Justice] for a ruling on the interpretation of Article 68 of Regulation No 796/2004 constitute a manifest and sufficiently serious breach such as to render the State liable for the damage allegedly caused by that court’s judgment?’

 Consideration of the questions referred

 The first question

47      By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 is to be interpreted as constituting a rule of EU law which is intended to confer rights on individuals, the infringement of which may be validly relied upon in support of an action seeking to trigger the non-contractual liability of a Member State.

48      As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that the principle whereby a State must be liable for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of infringement of EU law for which the State can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the Treaties on which the European Union is based (judgment of 19 November 1991, Francovich and Others, C‑6/90 and C‑9/90, EU:C:1991:428, paragraph 35). That principle applies to any case in which a Member State acts in breach of EU law, whichever public authority is responsible for the infringement (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame, C‑46/93 and C‑48/93, EU:C:1996:79, paragraphs 31 and 32, and of 22 December 2022, Ministre de la Transition écologique and Premier ministre (Liability of the State for air pollution), C‑61/21, EU:C:2022:1015, paragraph 43). That principle also applies where the alleged infringement stems from a decision of a court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law (‘national court against whose decisions there is no remedy’) (judgments of 30 September 2003, Köbler, C‑224/01, EU:C:2003:513, paragraph 50, and of 28 July 2016, Tomášová, C‑168/15, EU:C:2016:602, paragraph 20).

49      Regarding the conditions for triggering that liability, the Court has repeatedly held that individuals who have been harmed have a right to redress where three cumulative conditions are met, namely the rule of EU law breached is intended to confer rights on them, the breach of that rule is sufficiently serious, and there is a direct causal link between that breach and the loss or damage sustained by those individuals (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame, C‑46/93 and C‑48/93, EU:C:1996:79, paragraph 51; of 22 December 2022, Ministre de la Transition écologique and Premier ministre (Liability of the State for air pollution), C‑61/21, EU:C:2022:1015, paragraph 44; and of 18 December 2025, Hamoudi v Frontex, C‑136/24 P, EU:C:2025:977, paragraph 68).

50      Those three conditions are necessary and sufficient to trigger the liability of a Member State for infringement of EU law (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame, C‑46/93 and C‑48/93, EU:C:1996:79, paragraph 66, and of 30 September 2003, Köbler, C‑224/01, EU:C:2003:513, paragraph 57).

51      Consequently, EU law precludes national law from laying down conditions additional to or stricter than those referred to in paragraph 49 of the present judgment. By contrast, it in no way means that the liability of the State for infringement of EU law cannot be triggered under less restrictive conditions on the basis of national law (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame, C‑46/93 and C‑48/93, EU:C:1996:79, paragraph 66; of 13 March 2007, Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, C‑524/04, EU:C:2007:161, paragraph 115; and of 25 November 2010, Fuß, C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraphs 65 and 66).

52      Regarding, more specifically, the liability of a Member State for loss or damage caused by a decision of a national court against whose decisions there is no remedy and which is in breach of a rule of EU law, it follows from the case-law of the Court that that liability is governed by the three conditions set out in paragraph 49 of the present judgment (see, to that effect, judgments of 30 September 2003, Köbler, C‑224/01, EU:C:2003:513, paragraph 52, and of 28 July 2016, Tomášová, C‑168/15, EU:C:2016:602, paragraph 23).

53      As the first question referred for a preliminary ruling specifically concerns the first condition for triggering the liability of a Member State for infringement of EU law, it should be borne in mind, in that regard, that only a breach of a rule of EU law which is intended to confer rights on individuals is capable of triggering State liability. Those rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by provisions of EU law, but may also stem from positive or negative obligations which such provisions impose in a clearly defined manner, whether on individuals or on the Member States or institutions of the European Union. The failure by a Member State to comply with such positive or negative obligations is liable to alter the legal situation which those provisions are intended to establish for the individuals concerned by hindering the exercise, by those individuals, of the rights which are implicitly conferred on them under the provisions of EU law in question and on which they are deemed to be able to rely before the national courts (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 December 2022, Ministre de la Transition écologique and Premier ministre (Liability of the State for air pollution), C‑61/21, EU:C:2022:1015, paragraphs 45 to 47).

54      By contrast, where a provision of EU law merely pursues a general objective of protecting the public interest, it cannot be regarded as being intended to confer rights for the purposes of the case-law referred to in paragraph 49 of the present judgment (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 December 2022, Ministre de la Transition écologique and Premier ministre (Liability of the State for air pollution), C‑61/21, EU:C:2022:1015, paragraphs 55 and 56).

55      That having been clarified, it should be noted that, in the present case, Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 provides that the identification system for agricultural parcels is to be established on the basis of maps or land registry documents or other cartographic references. Use is to be made of computerised geographical information system techniques including preferably aerial or spatial orthoimagery, with a homogenous standard guaranteeing accuracy at least equivalent to cartography at a scale of 1:10 000.

56      The wording of that provision clearly indicates its institutional dimension, inasmuch as it specifies, exclusively for the Member States, the way in which they are to design the identification system for agricultural parcels.

57      A contextual and teleological interpretation of that provision confirms that it is not intended to confer rights on individuals.

58      In the first place, it follows from Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation No 1782/2003 that the identification system for agricultural parcels is part of the integrated system that the Member States were required to create under Article 17 thereof.

59      Recitals 11 and 13 of that regulation refer to the need to improve the effectiveness and usefulness of administration and control by adapting the previous system established by Regulation No 3508/92. Recital 14 of Regulation No 1782/2003 emphasises in particular that, given the complexity of the system and the large number of aid applications to be processed, it is essential to use the appropriate technical resources and administration and control methods, which means that each Member State must equip itself with an identification system for agricultural parcels. In the same vein, recital 15 of that regulation emphasises the need to set up high-performance computerised data bases which make it possible in particular to carry out cross-checks, in order to enable the data collected to be processed and used for the verification of aid applications. Lastly, recital 16 of Regulation No 1782/2003 presents the identification of agricultural parcels as a key element in the correct application of schemes linked to surface area and adds that, as experience has shown that the existing methods have certain deficiencies, provision should be made for an identification system to be set up, where necessary, with the aid of remote sensing.

60      Thus, the recitals referred to in the previous paragraph confirm that the elements of the integrated system, which include the identification system for agricultural parcels, are intended to improve the effectiveness of administration and control. The identification of agricultural parcels is a key element in the correct application of schemes linked to surface area.

61      It follows – as was emphasised, in essence, by the Advocate General in points 70 and 71 of his Opinion – that, as a component of the integrated system, the identification system for agricultural parcels cannot be analysed independently, without taking account of the more general objectives pursued by the implementation of the integrated system, which are, first, the improvement of the effectiveness of administration and control and, second, the protection of the financial interests of the Union.

62      Those two objectives are also referred to in recitals 13 and 55 of Regulation No 796/2004, alongside the combating of irregularities and fraud.

63      In that regard, the identification system for agricultural parcels, governed by Article 20 of Regulation No 1782/2003, helps to facilitate the task, entrusted to the Member States by Article 23(1) of that regulation, of carrying out administrative checks in respect of aid applications, including verifying the eligible area and the corresponding payment entitlements. Those administrative checks are intended, as is specified by Article 24(1)(c) of Regulation No 796/2004, to permit the detection of irregularities, in particular the automated detection using computerised means, including cross-checks between the agricultural parcels as declared in the single application and the reference parcels as contained in the identification system for agricultural parcels to verify the eligibility for aid of the areas as such.

64      As was argued by the Commission at the hearing, by imposing a minimum level of precision for maps used in the identification system for agricultural parcels, Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 is thus intended not to create rights for farmers applying for aid, but to improve the effectiveness of checks by ensuring that the competent national authorities are able to verify whether aid applications meet the requirements of EU law.

65      It follows that the intended purpose of effective management and control of direct payments is to protect the financial interests of the Union, so that the use of insufficiently precise maps is likely to impair the effectiveness of control, thereby creating the risk that Member States will not detect undue payments.

66      In the second place, there is nothing to permit the consideration that Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 is of a dual nature inasmuch as, in addition to its institutional dimension intended to protect the financial interests of the Union, it is also intended to confer rights on individuals.

67      Indeed, that provision does not enshrine any right of access, for farmers seeking aid, to the information contained in the identification system for agricultural parcels.

68      It is true that the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as well as Article 21(2) thereof, which relate, respectively, to the computerised data base and the system for the identification and registration of payment entitlements, provide for direct and immediate consultation, through the competent authority of the Member State, of the data relating to, on the one hand, the calendar and/or marketing years starting from the year 2000 and, on the other, at least the previous three consecutive calendar and/or marketing years.

69      However, as was emphasised by the Romanian Government and the Commission at the hearing, that right of access to the documents held by the competent national authority concerns only the data obtained from aid applications, as is expressly indicated in the first subparagraph of Article 19(1) of that regulation. That right of access does not, therefore, concern the data from the identification system for agricultural parcels themselves.

70      In any event, and as was argued by the Commission at the hearing, the cartographic documents referred to in Article 20 of Regulation No 1782/2003 are not stored in the data base provided for in Article 19 thereof. In addition, unlike the farm advisory system, referred to in Articles 13 to 16 of that regulation, the integrated system functions not as an instrument of support for farmers but – as the name implies – as an instrument of control.

71      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question referred is that Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as not constituting a rule of EU law which is intended to confer rights on individuals, the infringement of which may be validly relied upon in support of an action seeking to trigger the non-contractual liability of a Member State.

 The second question

72      By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004, read in conjunction with Article 12 thereof, is to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘factually correct information’ referred to in Article 68(1) of that regulation covers both the correct declaration of areas by the farmer and the correct identification by that farmer of the parcel used and its boundaries.

73      According to Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004, measures reducing the amount of any payments received or excluding persons from receiving payments do not apply where the farmer has submitted factually correct information or where he can show otherwise that he is not at fault.

74      Article 12(1)(d) of that regulation, which specifies the contents of the single application and which clarifies, as a result, the scope of Article 68(1) thereof, provides that the single application is to contain all information necessary to establish eligibility for the aid, in particular particulars permitting identification of all agricultural parcels on the holding, their area expressed in hectares to two decimal places, and their location.

75      It thus follows from a combined reading of those two provisions that the concept of ‘factually correct information’ referred to in Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004 must be understood as covering both the correct declaration of areas by the farmer and the correct identification by that farmer of the parcel used and its boundaries.

76      However, in accordance with Article 68(1) of that regulation, a farmer who has sent incorrect information to the competent national authority may avoid having the amount of any payments received reduced or being excluded from receiving payments if he can show that the error noted by that authority is not attributable to him.

77      That being so, as was noted by the Advocate General in point 86 of his Opinion, in the present case, first, it is apparent from the order for reference that, in his declarations, BX failed to indicate a factual element which, however, appears to be essential, namely the correct area, although he should have foreseen and would have been able to foresee that some of the areas declared were being used by their owners or by other persons, especially given that the overdeclaration at issue in the main proceedings concerned a difference of more than 80 hectares. Such a difference cannot reasonably have escaped the attention of the appellant in the main proceedings, who, as a farmer using agricultural parcels, is required to manage them as part of his professional activity. Second, although BX relies on errors contained in the topographical maps with which he had been provided by APIA Argeș, it is apparent from the evidence which has been brought to the Court’s attention that both the initial declaration and the declaration amending the area were made on the basis of the same maps provided by APIA Argeș. Nevertheless, it is for the referring court to carry out the necessary verifications in order to give a ruling in the dispute in the main proceedings.

78      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question referred is that Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004, read in conjunction with Article 12 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘factually correct information’ referred to in Article 68(1) of that regulation covers both the correct declaration of areas by the farmer and the correct identification by that farmer of the parcel used and its boundaries.

 The third question

79      By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that, at an earlier stage of the dispute in the main proceedings, a national court ruling at last instance failed to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004 constitutes an infringement of EU law which is such as to trigger the liability of the Romanian State.

80      In the context of the present case, and according to the explanations provided by BX at the hearing in response to questioning by the Court, the third question referred is intended, more specifically, to determine whether, by its order of 2 April 2012, the referring court manifestly acted in breach of EU law – and thus triggered the liability of the Romanian State – by failing to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004 and by failing to give reasons for its refusal to make such a reference.

81      As has been recalled in paragraph 48 of the present judgment, the principle whereby a State must be liable for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of infringement of EU law for which the State can be held responsible is also applicable where the alleged infringement stems from a decision of a national court ruling at last instance. The Court has previously held that the judiciary plays an essential role in the protection of the rights derived by individuals from rules of EU law and that a court ruling at last instance constitutes, by definition, the last judicial body before which those individuals may assert the rights conferred on them by those rules. The Court has inferred from this that the full effectiveness of the rules of EU law would be called into question and the protection of those rights would be weakened if individuals were precluded from being able, under certain conditions, to obtain redress for the loss or damage caused to them by a breach of EU law attributable to a decision of a national court ruling at last instance (see, to that effect, judgments of 30 September 2003, Köbler, C‑224/01, EU:C:2003:513, paragraphs 32 to 36 and 59; of 13 June 2006, Traghetti del Mediterraneo, C‑173/03, EU:C:2006:391, paragraph 31; and of 28 July 2016, Tomášová, C‑168/15, EU:C:2016:602, paragraph 20).

82      As regards, more specifically, the second condition for triggering the liability of a Member State for infringement of EU law, namely the requirement that there be a sufficiently serious breach of EU law, regard must be had to the specific nature of the judicial function and to the legitimate requirements of legal certainty. Thus, the liability of a Member State resulting from such a breach by a decision of a national court against whose decisions there is no remedy cannot be triggered except in the exceptional case where the court has manifestly acted in breach of the applicable law (judgment of 30 September 2003, Köbler, C‑224/01, EU:C:2003:513, paragraph 53).

83      In order to determine whether that condition is satisfied, the national court hearing a claim for compensation must take account of all the factors which characterise the situation brought before it, in particular, the degree of clarity and precision of the rule breached, the extent of the discretion that the breached rule leaves the national or EU authorities, whether the breach and the loss or damage caused were intentional or involuntary, whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable, the fact that the position taken by an EU institution may have contributed to the omission, adoption or maintenance of national measures or practices contrary to EU law, and non-compliance by the court in question with its obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. In any event, a breach of EU law will be sufficiently serious where the decision concerned was made in manifest breach of the case-law of the Court in the matter (see, to that effect, judgments of 30 September 2003, Köbler, C‑224/01, EU:C:2003:513, paragraphs 54 to 56, and of 28 July 2016, Tomášová, C‑168/15, EU:C:2016:602, paragraphs 25 and 26).

84      It should however be specified that not all the criteria listed in the previous paragraph need necessarily be fulfilled in order for the liability of a Member State to be triggered.

85      As regards the non-compliance, by a national court against whose decisions there is no remedy, with its obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling, this constitutes an element the importance of which varies depending on the specific circumstances of the case at hand.

86      Although non-compliance with that obligation may be likely to lead to a finding that an infringement of EU law by such a court is manifest, it cannot, in itself, be sufficient for a finding that there has been a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law which is intended to confer rights on individuals, and, accordingly, sufficient to trigger the liability of a Member State.

87      That obligation is based on the judicial cooperation established between the Court of Justice and the courts of the Member States, by means of a dialogue between one court and another, with a view to ensuring, first, the consistency, full effect and particular nature of EU law, as well as the autonomy of the EU legal system, observance of which is ensured by the Court, and, second, the proper application and uniform interpretation of EU law. That cooperation makes it possible, inter alia, to avoid a body of national case-law that is not in accordance with the rules of EU law from being established in a Member State (see, to that effect, judgments of 1 December 1965, Schwarze, 16/65, EU:C:1965:117, p. 1094; of 24 May 1977, Hoffmann-La Roche, 107/76, EU:C:1977:89, paragraph 5; of 15 October 2024, KUBERA, C‑144/23, EU:C:2024:881, paragraphs 33 and 35; and of 24 March 2026, Remling, C‑767/23, EU:C:2026:243, paragraphs 19 and 21 and the case-law cited). It thus means that the national courts, including those against whose decisions there is no remedy, and the Court of Justice have a shared responsibility to ensure the uniform and consistent interpretation of EU law.

88      It should also be borne in mind that the system of direct cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts established by Article 267 TFEU does not constitute a means of redress available to the parties to a case pending before a national court or tribunal. Thus, the mere fact that a party contends that the dispute gives rise to a question concerning the interpretation of EU law does not mean that the court or tribunal concerned is compelled to consider that such a question has been raised within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi, C‑561/19, EU:C:2021:799, paragraphs 53 and 54 and the case-law cited).

89      It follows that, in order for there to be a finding of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law triggering the liability of a Member State, non-compliance with the obligation, set out in the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, to make a reference for a preliminary ruling must be accompanied by breach of another rule of EU law conferring rights on individuals.

90      In the present case, it can be seen from the answers to the first and second questions referred that (i) Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 is not intended to confer rights on individuals, and (ii) a farmer cannot validly rely on Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004 in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings. Accordingly, even if the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) has failed to comply with its obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, such non-compliance cannot, in any event, help to establish, on the basis of EU law, the liability of the Romanian State for the material and non-material damage which the appellant in the main proceedings claims to have suffered as a result of that court’s decision of 9 April 2012.

91      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third question referred is that the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that, at an earlier stage of the dispute in the main proceedings, a national court ruling at last instance failed to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004 cannot constitute an infringement of EU law which is such as to trigger the liability of the Member State concerned.

 Costs

92      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

1.      Article 20(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1009/2008 of 9 October 2008,

must be interpreted as not constituting a rule of EU law which is intended to confer rights on individuals, the infringement of which may be validly relied upon in support of an action seeking to trigger the non-contractual liability of a Member State.

2.      Article 68(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 381/2007 of 4 April 2007, read in conjunction with Article 12 of Regulation No 796/2004,

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘factually correct information’ referred to in Article 68(1) of that regulation covers both the correct declaration of areas by the farmer and the correct identification by that farmer of the parcel used and its boundaries.

3.      The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that, at an earlier stage of the dispute in the main proceedings, a national court ruling at last instance failed to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004 cannot constitute an infringement of EU law which is such as to trigger the liability of the Member State concerned.

[Signatures]

*      Language of the case: Romanian.