Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 12 February 2024 – Porcellino Grasso SRL v Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenția pentru Finanțarea Investițiilor Rurale, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție în Agricultură, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție în Agricultură – Centrul Județean Vâlcea
(Case C-116/24, Porcellino Grasso)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Curtea de Apel Pitești
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Porcellino Grasso SRL
Respondents: Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenția pentru Finanțarea Investițiilor Rurale, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție în Agricultură, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție în Agricultură – Centrul Județean Vâlcea
Questions referred
Do the provisions of Articles 288, 291, and 297 TFEU, the principle of [EU] law according to which a decision of the European Commission produces legal effects until it is annulled – as that principle has been enshrined in the judgments [of the Court of Justice] in Cases C-245/92 P (Chemie Linz v Commission), C-475/01 (Commission v Greece), C-362/14 (Schrems), C-533/10 (CIVAD), 314/85 (Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost], C-644/17 (Eurobolt) and C-199/06 (CELF and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication) – as well as Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 1 and Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 2 preclude a practice of the Romanian national authorities involving the adoption of internal measures that are contrary to European Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 3529 of 25 May 2012 correcting the Programul Național de Dezvoltare Rurală (PNDR), Romania’s rural development programme for the programming period 2007-2013, and thus disapplying that decision, as long as it has not been amended or annulled?
Having regard to the general obligation of the Member States to comply with EU law, where a national court finds itself in a situation where it is complying with an interpretative judgment delivered by the [Court of Justice] under Article 267 TFEU (namely, the judgment of 17 November 2022 in Case C-443/21), and that judgment does not contain assessments as to the validity and effects of the European Commission’s implementing decisions (Commission Decision C(2012) 3529 final of 25 May 2012 and Commission Decision 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 1 ) but rather only [assessments] on the recovery of funding in the absence of a decision of the European Commission to that effect, is the national court in question entitled to take into account, when ruling on the dispute before it, the effects of and reasoning (the considerations made) in a judgment of the General Court of the European Union, given in an action for annulment governed by Article 263 TFEU and annulling an implementing decision of the European Commission in a similar case (namely, the judgment of 18 January 2023, given in Case T-33/21)?
Does the principle of assumption of liability by the State require that, in a situation such as that in the present case, the Romanian State must pay the rates of support to the beneficiaries of Measure 215, in the amount laid down in Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 3529 of 25 May 2012, for the entire duration of their commitments?
____________
1 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) (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 15).
1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).
1 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29).