Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad – Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 April 2024 – ‘Kanevi Komers DS’ EOOD v Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’
(Case C-267/24, Kanevi Komers DS)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Administrativen sad – Varna
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: ‘Kanevi Komers DS’ EOOD
Defendant: Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’
Questions referred
1. Is Article 15 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 1 of 11 March 2014 directly applicable by the Member States, or does the application thereof require the adoption of domestic legal provisions?
2. Must Article 15 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 be regarded as providing that, for the proper notification of the competent authority by the beneficiary that the aid application or payment claim is incorrect or has become incorrect since it was lodged, it suffices that the information has been submitted in writing and received by the competent authority, without submission through a dedicated platform being provided for?
3. Must the restrictions introduced in Article 15 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 to the rights of the beneficiary to inform, without incurring a penalty, the competent authority that the aid application or payment claim is incorrect or has become incorrect since it was lodged, that is to say, that ‘the beneficiary has not been informed of the competent authority’s intention to carry out an on-the-spot check’ and ‘the authority has [not] already informed the beneficiary of any non-compliances in the aid application or payment claim’, be interpreted as requiring evidence of the competent authority having informed the beneficiary of its intention to carry out a check or of any non-compliance in the aid application or payment claim? In that regard, where the competent authority did not inform the beneficiary of its intention to carry out an on-the-spot check or of any non-compliance in the aid application or payment claim, is the beneficiary authorised under that provision of the regulation to withdraw the application or claim before being informed by the administrative authority, where a check has already been carried out and non-compliance has been found by that authority?
[4]. Do recital 17 and Article 15 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 allow a national rule whereby ‘the support applicant cannot withdraw the submitted application or claim in its entirety or in respect of one or more schemes … therein if: 1. he or she has been informed of overlaps found therein in terms of the parcels with identified overlaps; 2. he or she has been informed that he or she has been selected for an on-the-spot check; 3. he or she has been subjected to an on-the-spot check and has been informed of non-compliances found in terms of the areas and/or animals for which those have been found’ as well as practice on the part of the national authority with regard to on-the-spot checks (whereby the beneficiary is not informed of the check or of its outcome) and practice on the part of the national authority which requires beneficiaries to give written notice of withdrawal through a dedicated system, for the sole purpose of easier processing of applications?
[5]. Is the third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 389) applicable in the main proceedings to the penalty imposed on the farmer under Article 19а of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 (repealed by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1172 of 4 May 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system in the common agricultural policy and the application and calculation of administrative penalties for conditionality (OJ L 183/12, 8.7.2021) in accordance with its recital 16, which reads, ‘In the interest of clarity and legal certainty, Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 should be repealed. However, that Regulation should continue to apply to aid applications for direct payments lodged before 1 January 2023, to payment claims made in relation to support measures implemented under Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 and to the control system and administrative penalties as regards rules on cross-compliance.’), which was applicable in the 2019 marketing year and at the time the sanction was imposed by means of the letter of notification dated 5 December 2022 on the approval and payment of financial support paid under schemes and measures for area-related direct payments in the 2019 marketing year, file number […] 05.12.2022, given that, at the time of examination of the case by the court, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 in the version applicable from 1 January 2023 (available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0640) does not contain Article 19a?
____________
1 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48).