EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CA0093
Case C-93/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia (Agriculture — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Common agricultural policy — Aid — Administrative law disputes — Determination of the court with jurisdiction — National criterion — Administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the authority which adopted the contested act is located — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Case C-93/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia (Agriculture — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Common agricultural policy — Aid — Administrative law disputes — Determination of the court with jurisdiction — National criterion — Administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the authority which adopted the contested act is located — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Case C-93/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia (Agriculture — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Common agricultural policy — Aid — Administrative law disputes — Determination of the court with jurisdiction — National criterion — Administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the authority which adopted the contested act is located — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
SL C 225, 3.8.2013, p. 28–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.8.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 225/28 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia
(Case C-93/12) (1)
(Agriculture - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Common agricultural policy - Aid - Administrative law disputes - Determination of the court with jurisdiction - National criterion - Administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the authority which adopted the contested act is located - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
2013/C 225/45
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Administrativen sad Sofia-grad
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov
Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of the principles of effectiveness and effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of equivalence — Aid scheme of the common agricultural policy — National procedural rule providing that administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the common agricultural policy fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act is located, but that similar disputes of a domestic nature fall within the jurisdiction of the court in whose judicial district the agricultural land in question is located.
Operative part of the judgment
European Union law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does not preclude a national rule of jurisdiction such as that in Article 133(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks), which results in conferring on a single court all disputes relating to decisions of a national authority responsible for the payment of agricultural support under the European Union common agricultural policy, provided that actions intended to ensure the safeguarding of the rights which individuals derive from European Union law are not conducted in less advantageous conditions than those provided for in respect of actions intended to protect the rights derived from any aid schemes for farmers established under national law, and that jurisdiction rule does not cause individuals procedural problems in terms, inter alia, of the duration of the proceedings, such as to render the exercise of the rights derived from European Union law excessively difficult, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.