EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62022CN0169

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

OJ C 222, 7.6.2022, p. 14–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 222, 7.6.2022, p. 13–14 (GA)

7.6.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/14


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

(Case C-169/22)

(2022/C 222/25)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

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?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 368, p. 15.


Top