Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)
24 September 2026 ( * )
[para_4]( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Common agricultural policy (CAP) – European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – Rural development support measures – Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 – Article 47 – Lease or letting agreement – Lease agreement concluded between a municipal authority and an aid beneficiary – Commitment over five years – Termination of the lease agreement further to a legislative reform – Obligation to reimburse the aid received in part or in full – Not possible to adapt those commitments to a new situation for the holding concerned – Definition of ‘force majeure’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ – Principles of EU law – Liability of Member States for loss or damage caused to individuals by infringements of EU law – Conditions of engagement – Provision intended to confer rights on individuals )
[para_5]In Case C‑600/25,
[para_6]REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria), made by decision of 10 September 2025, received at the Court on 10 September 2025, in the proceedings
[para_7]M.P.M.
[para_8]v
[para_9]Ministerstvo na zemedelieto i hranite,
[para_10]Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ – Sofia,
[para_11]Varhoven administrativen sad,
[para_12]THE COURT (Seventh Chamber),
[para_13]composed of F. Schalin, President of the Chamber, M. Gavalec (Rapporteur) and Z. Csehi, Judges,
[para_14]Advocate General: A. Biondi,
[para_15]Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
[para_16]having regard to the written procedure,
[para_17]after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
[para_18]– M.P.M., by K. Boncheva, advokat,
[para_19]– the European Commission, by F. Calvo Langdon, G. Koleva and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents,
[para_20]having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
[para_21]gives the following
Judgment
[para_23]1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation, first of 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) (OJ 2006 L 368, p.15), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 434/2007 of 20 April 2007 (OJ 2007 L 104, p. 8) (‘Regulation No 1974/2006’), read together with recital 37 of Regulation No 1974/2006 and, second, Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549 and corrigendum OJ 2016 L 130, p.13), read together with recital 5 of Regulation No 1306/2013.
[para_24]2 The request has been made in proceedings between M.P.M., a Bulgarian farmer, on the one hand, and the Ministerstvo na zemedelieto i hranite (Minister for Agriculture and Food, Bulgaria), Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ – Sofia (National Agricultural Fund – Sofia, Bulgaria; ‘the National Agricultural Fund’) and the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria), on the other hand, seeking to obtain compensation for the damage he claims to have suffered as a result of the obligation to reimburse 50% of the amount of the agricultural subsidies that he received.
Legal context
European Union law
Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
[para_28]3 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) was repealed by Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487). However, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 88 of Regulation No 1305/2013, Regulation No 1698/2005 continues to apply to operations implemented pursuant to programmes approved by the Commission under that regulation before 1 January 2014.
4 Article 36 of Regulation No 1698/2005, entitled ‘Measures’, provides:
[para_30]‘Support under this section shall concern:
(a) measures targeting the sustainable use of agricultural land through:
(i) natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain areas;
(ii) payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas;
[para_34]…’
[para_35]5 Article 37 of that regulation, entitled ‘Natural handicap payments in mountain areas and payments in other areas with handicaps’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof:
[para_36]‘1. Payments provided for in Article 36(a)(i) and (ii) shall be granted annually per hectare of utilised agricultural area … within the meaning of Commission Decision 2000/115/EC of 24 November 1999 relating to the definitions of the characteristics, the list of agricultural products, the exceptions to the definitions and the regions and districts regarding the surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings [(OJ 2000 L 38, p. 1)].
[para_37]Payments should compensate for farmers’ additional costs and income forgone related to the handicap for agricultural production in the area concerned.
[para_38]2. Payments shall be granted to farmers who undertake to pursue their farming activity in areas designated pursuant to Article 50(2) and (3) for at least five years from the first payment.’
Regulation No 1974/2006
[para_40]6 Regulation No 1974/2006 was repealed by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 807/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and introducing transitional provisions (OJ 2014 L 227, p. 1). However, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 19 of that delegated regulation, Regulation No 1974/2006 continues to apply to operations implemented pursuant to programmes approved by the Commission under Regulation No 1698/2005 before 1 January 2014.
7 Recital 37 of Regulation No 1974/2006 states:
[para_42]‘Rules common to several measures should be laid down, in particular regarding the implementation of integrated operations, investments measures, the transfer of a holding during the period for which a commitment is given as a condition for the grant of assistance, the increase of the area of the holding and the definition of different categories of force majeure or exceptional circumstances.’
8 Article 47 of that regulation is worded as follows:
[para_44]‘1. Member States may recognise, in particular, the following categories of force majeure or exceptional circumstances in which they will not require the partial or full reimbursement of aid received by the beneficiary:
(a) death of the beneficiary;
(b) long-term professional incapacity of the beneficiary;
[para_47](c) expropriation of a large part of the holding if that could not have been anticipated on the day on which the commitment was given;
(d) a severe natural disaster seriously affecting land on the holding;
(e) the accidental destruction of livestock buildings on the holding;
[para_50](f) an epizootic disease affecting all or part of the farmer’s livestock.
[para_51]2. Cases of force majeure or exceptional circumstances shall be notified in writing by the beneficiary, or any person entitled through or under him to the competent authority, together with relevant evidence to the satisfaction of that authority, within 10 working days from the date on which the beneficiary, or the person entitled through or under him, is in a position to do so.’
Regulation No 1305/2013
[para_53]9 Article 47 of Regulation No 1305/2013, entitled ‘Rules for area related payments’, provides, in paragraph 4 thereof:
[para_54]‘Reimbursement of the aid received shall not be required in cases of force majeure and exceptional circumstances as referred to in Article 2 of Regulation [No 1306/2013].’
Regulation No 1306/2013
10 Recital 5 of Regulation No 1306/2013 states:
[para_57]‘In order to ensure consistency between the practices of Member States and harmonised application of the force majeure clause by Member States, this Regulation should provide, where appropriate, for exemptions in cases of force majeure and exceptional circumstances, as well as for a non-exhaustive list of possible cases of force majeure and exceptional circumstances to be recognised by the national competent authorities. Those authorities should take decisions on force majeure or exceptional circumstances on a case by case basis, on the basis of relevant evidence and applying the concept of force majeure in the light of Union agricultural law including the case-law of the Court of Justice.’
[para_58]11 Article 2 of that regulation, entitled ‘Terms used in this Regulation’, provides, in paragraph 2 thereof:
[para_59]‘For the purposes of the financing, management and monitoring of the [Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)], “ force majeure ” and “exceptional circumstances” may, in particular, be recognised in the following cases:
(a) death of the beneficiary;
(b) long-term professional incapacity of the beneficiary;
(c) a severe natural disaster gravely affecting the holding;
(d) the accidental destruction of livestock buildings on the holding;
[para_64](e) an epizootic or a plant disease affecting part or all of the beneficiary’s livestock or crops respectively;
[para_65](f) expropriation of all or a large part of the holding if that expropriation could not have been anticipated on the day of lodging the application.’
12 Article 121 of that regulation provides:
[para_67]‘1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union .
[para_68]It shall apply from 1 January 2014.
2. However, the following provisions shall apply as follows:
(a) Articles 7, 8, 16, 25, 26 and 43 from 16 October 2013;
(b) Articles 18 and 40, for expenditure effected, from 16 October 2013;
(c) Article 52 from 1 January 2015.’
Bulgarian law
Law on ownership and use of agricultural land
[para_75]13 Article 37i of the Zakon za sobstvenostta i polzvaneto na zemedelskite zemi (Law on ownership and use of agricultural land) (DV No 17 of 1 March 1991) provides, in paragraphs 1 and 4 thereof:
[para_76]‘(1) Pastures, grassland and meadows forming part of the Darzhaven pozemlen fond (State land estates, Bulgaria) and the municipal land estates shall be leased or let, in accordance with Article 24a(2), to the owners or users of holdings for the keeping of grazing animals recorded in the integrated information system of the Balgarska agentsia po bezopasnost na hranite [(Bulgarian Food Safety Agency)], on the basis of the number and type of livestock declared, at a price determined by a market mechanism. Pastures, grassland and meadows forming part of the State land estates and the municipal land estates shall be let or leased to persons who have neither tax debts nor debts owed to the National Agricultural Fund, the State land estates or the municipal land estates, nor any obligations vis-à-vis land under Article 37c(3)(2).
[para_77]…
[para_78](4) Pastures, grassland and meadows shall be distributed between beneficiaries who have holdings registered in the respective land area, on the basis of the number and type of grazing livestock declared, in accordance with the pastures, grassland and meadows legally owned or used, but up to 15 decares per livestock unit on properties in the 1st to 7th categories and/or 30 decares per livestock unit on properties in the 8th to 10th categories. Eligible persons farming cattle for meat production and indigenous (native) breeds of animal shall be allocated up to 20 decares per livestock unit on properties in the 1st to 7th categories and up to 40 decares per livestock unit on properties in the 7th to 10th categories. Beneficiaries farming cattle for milk or meat, sheep and/or goats approved for support in the context of activities under the “Payments for conversion to organic farming” and “Payments for the maintenance of organic farming” sub-measures included under “Organic farming” shall be allocated land at the rate of up to 0.15 livestock units per hectare, irrespective of the property category.’
The amending law
[para_80]14 On 11 August 2015, the Darzhaven vestnik No 61 was published, a law amending the Law on the ownership and use of agricultural land (‘the amending law’). Paragraph 15 of the transitional and final provisions of the amending law provides:
[para_81]‘(1) Beneficiaries who concluded agreements for the leasing or letting of pastures, grassland and meadows forming part of State land estates and municipal land estates before 24 February 2015 are required to bring those agreements into line with the requirements of Article 37i(1) and (4) by 1 February 2016.
[para_82](2) Beneficiaries approved under the part referred to in Article 3(3) of Decree No 4 of 24 February 2015 concerning the implementation of Measure 11, “Organic Farming”, of the 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme … who concluded agreements for the leasing or letting of pastures, grassland and meadows forming part of State land estates and municipal land estates before 24 February 2015, and whose grazing animals and pastures have been approved for support, are required to bring those agreements into line with the requirements of Article 37i(1) by 1 February 2016, by complying with the ratio of at least 0.15 animal units per hectare, irrespective of the category.
[para_83](3) Agreements for the leasing or letting of pastures, grassland and meadows forming part of State land estates and municipal land estates which are not brought into line within the time period laid down in paragraphs 1 or 2 shall be terminated by the mayor of the municipality or by the director of [the regional Agriculture Directorate, Bulgaria].
[para_84]…’
Decree No 11/2008
[para_86]15 Naredba No 11 za usloviata i reda za prilagane na myarka 211 ‘Plashtania na zemedelski stopani za prirodni ogranichenia v planinskite rayoni’ i myarka 212 ‘Plashtania na zemedelski stopani v rayoni s ogranichenia, razlichni ot planinskite rayoni’ ot Programata za razvitie na selskite rayoni za perioda 2007-2013 (Decree No 11 laying down conditions and detailed rules for the implementation of Measure 211, ‘Payments to farmers in mountain areas facing natural handicaps’, and of Measure 212, ‘Payments for farmers in areas facing natural handicaps other than mountain areas’ of the Rural Development Programme for the 2007-2013 period) of 3 April 2008 (DV No 40 of 18 April 2008), in the version applicable to the facts in the main proceedings (‘Decree No 11/2008’), provides, in Article 1(1) thereof:
[para_87]‘The present decree governs the conditions and detailed rules for the implementation of the following measures under the 2007-2013 Rural Development Programme, financed by the [EAFRD]:
1. “natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain areas”;
2. “payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas”.’
[para_90]16 Under Article 2 of Decree No 11/2008, farmers who have submitted an application for support for one of the measures referred to in Article 1(1) thereof are to engage in agricultural activities in mountain areas or areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas, for the duration of the support [received].
17 Under Article 4(1) of that decree:
[para_92]‘Applicants for support under the present decree are required:
[para_93]…
[para_94]3. to submit every year following the first compensatory payment an application for support declaring land situated in the less-favoured area concerned;
[para_95]…’
18 Article 14 of that decree is worded as follows:
[para_97]‘(1) Farmers who fail to submit an application for financial support during the five-year commitment period shall be ineligible for aid under the present decree and shall be required to reimburse the amounts received as part of the compensatory payments in respect of less-favoured areas until that point in time, or part of those amounts, on the basis of the year in which they ended their participation in the measures, as follows:
1) after the first year, 100%;
2) after the second year, 75%;
3) after the third year, 50%;
[para_101]4) after the fourth year, 25%.
[para_102]…
[para_103](3) The funds referred to in paragraph 1 shall be recovered, with statutory interest as of the notification to the farmer concerned of the obligation to reimburse that amount until the date of effective reimbursement or of the effective deduction of the amount.
[para_104]…’
19 Under Article 15 of that decree:
[para_106]‘(1) In cases of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, Article 14 shall not apply, the commitment shall be terminated, and the partial or total reimbursement of the aid received by the farmer shall not be required.
[para_107](2) Cases of force majeure or exceptional circumstances and the relevant proof (documents issued by the competent administrative authority) shall be notified in writing to the National Agricultural Fund – Paying agency by the farmer concerned, any person appointed by him or her or by his or her successor within 10 working days from the date on which the farmer, his or her representative or his or her successor is able to do so.’
[para_108]20 Under paragraph 1, point 3 of the supplementary provisions, within the meaning of that decree ‘ force majeure ’ or ‘exceptional circumstances’ are to mean:
[para_109]‘(a) the death of the beneficiary;
(b) long-term professional incapacity of the beneficiary;
[para_111](c) expropriation of a large part of the holding if that could not have been anticipated on the day on which the commitment was given;
(d) a severe natural disaster gravely affecting the holding;
[para_113]…’
Law on the liability of the State
[para_115]21 Article 1(1) and (2) of the Zakon za otgovornostta na darzhavata i obshtinite za vredi (Law on the liability of the State and of municipalities for damage caused) (DV No 60 of 5 August 1988), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Law on the liability of the State’), provides:
[para_116]‘(1) The State and the municipalities shall be liable for damage sustained by citizens and legal persons following illegal acts, actions or failure to act by their bodies and employees within the scope or at the time of administrative activity.’
[para_117](2) Actions brought pursuant to paragraph 1 are to be assessed in accordance with the procedure set out by the Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks [(Code of Administrative Procedure)].’
[para_118]22 Article 2c(1), point 1, and (2) of the Law on the liability of the State provides:
[para_119]‘(1) Where the damage is the result of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law, actions shall be examined by the courts in accordance with the detailed rules of:
[para_120]1. the Code of Administrative Procedure, as regards damage within the meaning of Article 1(1) and as regards damage arising from the activities of the administrative courts and the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court);
[para_121]…
[para_122](2) Where an action within the meaning of paragraph 1 is brought against several defendants, it shall be examined in accordance with the detailed rules of the Code of Administrative Procedure, if the party to the proceedings is an administrative court, the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court) or a legal person for damage arising in the course of or in connection with an administrative activity.’
[para_123]23 Under Article 4(2) of the Law on the liability of the State, ‘where the action is brought against several defendants, those defendants are jointly and severally liable’.
Law on obligations and contracts
[para_125]24 Article 53 of the Zakon za zadalzheniyata i dogovorite (Law on obligations and contracts), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, provides:
[para_126]‘Where the harm was caused by several persons, those persons shall be jointly and severally liable.’
[para_127]25 Under Article 122 of the Law on obligations and contracts, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings:
[para_128]‘The creditor may require performance of the entire obligation from any of the debtors. …’
The Tax and Social Security Procedure Code
[para_130]26 Article 162 of the Danachno-osiguritelen protsesualen kodeks (Tax and Social Security Procedure Code), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, is worded as follows:
[para_131]‘(1) The claims of the State and those of local authorities shall be either public or private.
(2) Public claims of the State and public claims of local authorities are claims:
[para_133]…
[para_134]8. … in respect of amounts unduly paid or overpaid, as well as funds unduly received or acquired in connection with projects financed by European Union funds, including the relevant national co-financing, arising from an administrative act, including financial corrections, excess advances paid, instances where rates exceed the limits set in the project budget, cross-financing, as well as fines and other financial penalties provided for under national legislation and European Union law;
9. … interest on the claims referred to in points 1 to 8.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
[para_137]27 In 2012, M.P.M., who is a farmer, concluded agreements for the lease of agricultural land for a five-year term with the State land estates. In order to obtain aid under Measure 211, ‘Payments to farmers in mountain areas facing natural handicaps’ (‘Measure 211’), and Measure 212, ‘Payments to farmers in areas facing natural handicaps in areas other than mountain areas’ (‘Measure 212’), of the 2007-2013 Rural Development Programme, he undertook to maintain that land in good agricultural and environmental condition.
[para_138]28 In August 2015, paragraph 15 of the transitional and final provisions of the amending law nevertheless required users who had concluded agreements for the leasing or letting of pastures, grassland and meadows from the State land estates or municipal land estates to bring those agreements into line with the requirements of Article 37i(1) and (4) of the Law on ownership and use of agricultural land before 1 February 2016, failing which those contracts would be terminated (‘the August 2015 reform’). Following the August 2015 reform, those pastures, grassland and meadows could be leased or let only to owners or users of holdings for the keeping of grazing animals recorded in the integrated information system of the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency.
[para_139]29 Since M.P.M. did not have the financial resources necessary to comply with those requirements, he requested the termination of those lease agreements. That termination took effect on 1 October 2015. M.P.M. then informed the National Agricultural Fund that he was no longer in a position to make an application for aid for 2016 and 2017 and that, consequently, he would be unable to comply with the five-year commitment given in 2012.
[para_140]30 On 23 April 2020, pursuant to Article 14(1), point 3 of Decree No 11/2008, the National Agricultural Fund adopted two decisions (together, ‘the two decisions of 23 April 2020’), by which it excluded M.P.M. from support under Measures 211 and 212 and established two public State claims in the amount of 724.92 leva (BGN) and 9 191.56 respectively (approximately EUR 371 and 4 700), corresponding to 50% of the total amount paid to him under those two measures for the 2013 to 2015 campaigns. That fund took the view, in essence, first, that the commitment given could have been complied with by declaring other land situated in the less-favoured area and, second, that the August 2015 reform was not a ‘case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 15 of that decree.
[para_141]31 Initially, taking the view that the August 2015 reform was a ‘case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances’, so that he should have been exempted from reimbursement of the financial aid that he had received, M.P.M. challenged the two decisions of 23 April 2020 by two separate actions brought before the Administrativen sad Plovdiv (Administrative Court, Plovdiv, Bulgaria). That court upheld one of the two actions and dismissed the other.
[para_142]32 On appeal on a point of law, the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court) confirmed, in essence, the legality of those two decisions of 23 April 2020 by two judgments delivered on 8 October and 10 November 2021 respectively. In essence, that court held that the August 2015 reform was neither a case of force majeure nor an exceptional circumstance, since M.P.M. could have used other land to fulfil his multiannual commitment. That court also held that the list of cases of force majeure in paragraph 1, point 3 of Decree No 11/2008 was exhaustive and that that provision complied with Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013. Lastly, that court stated that M.P.M. could have, within the statutory time limit, brought his holding into line with the requirements imposed by the August 2015 reform.
[para_143]33 In the appeal which he brought against the judgment of the Administrativen sad Plovdiv (Administrative Court, Plovdiv), which had dismissed his case at first instance, M.P.M. had asked the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court) to refer four questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. Those questions sought to ascertain whether the list of cases of force majeure set out in Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 was exhaustive and, more broadly, whether, by excluding, in the present case, recognition of a ‘case of force majeure ’ or an ‘exceptional circumstance’, paragraph 1, point 3 of the supplementary provisions of Decree No 11/2008 were compatible with Article 2(2) of that regulation.
[para_144]34 The Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court) did not, however, grant that request to make a reference for a preliminary ruling, holding that the questions thus proposed were general and hypothetical and that they concerned the assessment of the facts and not the lack of clarity of Article 2(2). That court also noted that M.P.M had not submitted an application for aid and that, as regards Measure 211, he had not informed the National Agricultural Fund, namely the paying agency, of the situation.
[para_145]35 Subsequently, M.P.M. brought three actions for damages against the Bulgarian State before the Administrativen sad Plovdiv (Administrative Court, Plovdiv) seeking compensation for material damage, which he estimates at BGN 13 708.81 (approximately EUR 7 011), and non-material damage, which he estimates at BGN 1 000 (approximately EUR 511), together with statutory interest. In his view, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, by adopting Decree No 11/2008, the Deputy Executive Director of the National Agricultural Fund, by taking the two decisions of 23 April 2020, and the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court), by delivering the judgments of 8 October and 10 November 2021, manifestly infringed EU law.
[para_146]36 By a judgment of 29 November 2024, the Administrativen sad Plovdiv (Administrative Court, Plovdiv) joined the cases concerning the actions brought by M.P.M. and dismissed those actions, holding that Article 15 of Decree No 11/2008, read in conjunction with paragraph 1, point 3 of the supplementary provisions of that decree, did not infringe Article 47(4) of Regulation 1305/2013. In any event, it had not been established that evidence of ‘ force majeure ’ or ‘exceptional circumstances’ had been notified in writing to the National Agricultural Fund by M.P.M., by any person appointed by him or by his successor within 10 working days from the date on which he was able to do so, contrary to the requirements of Article 15(2) of that decree.
[para_147]37 In addition, the provisions of EU law relied on by M.P.M. are not directly intended to confer rights on individuals, so that one of the conditions for a Member State to be held liable for an infringement of EU law is not satisfied.
[para_148]38 Furthermore, the Administrativen sad Plovdiv (Administrative Court, Plovdiv) held that M.P.M. had not raised before the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court) any question requiring further interpretation, with the result that that court cannot be regarded as having infringed EU law by not making a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in that case.
[para_149]39 Lastly, according to the Administrativen sad Plovdiv (Administrative Court, Plovdiv), in the present case, no manifest inconsistency with the Court’s case-law on the matter has been established either, since the judgment of 18 January 2024, Askos Properties (C‑656/22, EU:C:2024:56), on which M.P.M. relied, post-dates the administrative and judicial decision at issue in the main proceedings.
[para_150]40 M.P.M. brought an appeal on a point of law against the judgment of 29 November 2024 before the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court), which is the referring court.
[para_151]41 That court takes the view that it follows from Article 88 of Regulation No 1305/2013 and Article 19 of Delegated Regulation No 807/2014 that Regulations No 1698/2005 and 1974/2006 are applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, as is Decree No 11/2008.
[para_152]42 The referring court states, in the first place, that Article 47 of Regulation No 1974/2006 creates rights, so that an individual may rely on it directly in seeking an exemption from reimbursement of part or all of the aid received.
[para_153]43 In the second place, the referring court considers that the National Agricultural Fund infringed EU law by adopting the two decisions of 23 April 2020. It takes the view that the recipient of aid must use the same land or, at the very least, land situated in the same mountain area or with handicaps. In addition, that court doubts whether M.P.M. had the opportunity to use land other than that made available to him by the State land estates, in particular land belonging to private individuals, to register a livestock holding in the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency’s integrated information system within six months and, lastly, to transfer to another person the personal commitment which he had given.
[para_154]44 In the third place, the referring court notes that, in its judgments of 8 October and 10 November 2021, it held that the fact that Decree No 11/2008 does not set out the two situations referred to in Article 47(e) and (f) of Regulation No 1974/2006 cannot give rise to a conflict between those two acts, since Article 47 contains a non-exhaustive list.
[para_155]45 In the fourth place, that court asks whether it manifestly infringed EU law in its judgments of 8 October and 10 November 2021, by finding that the list of cases of force majeure in paragraph 1, point 3, of the supplementary provisions of Decree No 11/2008 were exhaustive and that that regulatory provision complied with Regulation No 1306/2013, without finding it necessary to grant M.P.M’s request that a reference for a preliminary ruling be made to the Court of Justice on that point. In that regard, the referring court accepts that its own case-law is contradictory, since, in certain decisions, it held that the list in Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006 and Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 is not exhaustive, whereas, in other decisions, it has held the contrary.
[para_156]46 That said, the referring court notes that, in the judgment of 10 November 2021, as regards Measure 211, it found, on the basis of the evidence gathered, that the beneficiary had not notified the administrative authority of the occurrence of a situation of force majeure within the period laid down in Article 15(2) of Decree No 11/2008, which faithfully reproduces Article 47(2) of Regulation No 1974/2006 on that point. By contrast, in the judgment of 8 October 2021, that court stated, as regards Measure 212, that that obligation to notify had been complied with.
[para_157]47 In those circumstances, the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
[para_158]‘(1) Is Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006 to be interpreted as meaning that the cases of ‘ force majeure or exceptional circumstances’ also include a case in which an aid beneficiary loses the right to use leased assets forming part of State land estates because his lease agreement is terminated as a result of a legislative amendment which came into force after he had entered into a multi-year commitment and imposed a new condition on his use of those parcels of land, and he has taken all of the measures he could have taken without making an excessive sacrifice to bring the lease agreement concerned into line with the newly introduced condition?
[para_159](2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is there a manifest infringement of EU law by national administrative authorities and courts which have drawn opposing conclusions in fact and in law and have as a result refused to exempt the beneficiary from the obligation to reimburse the aid received? Is it material to the answer to this question that the case-law established by the court of last instance in similar cases is contradictory?
[para_160](3) Can there be a manifest infringement of EU law in the case where the court deciding on the award of compensation finds that the national court having given final judgment made an incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence and that incorrect assessment led to a completely incorrect factual conclusion concerning the most important legally significant fact? In proceedings such as those in the main case, is it permissible for the court deciding on the award of compensation to review the correctness of the final judgment, including, in the course of so doing, the assessment of the facts and evidence which formed the basis of the factual and legal conclusions of the national court that delivered the judgment from which the alleged damage is said to arise?
[para_161](4) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the present case, in the light of recital 5 of Regulation [No 1306/2013] and the principle of legal certainty, involve a manifest infringement of EU law by a national court which has delivered a final judgment and refused to submit a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 2[(2)] of that regulation?
[para_162](5) Is there a serious infringement of EU law in the case where an administrative authority, when adopting a national measure of secondary legislation transposing a provision of EU law containing a non-exhaustive list of cases of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, confined the corresponding list provided by way of example to only some of the cases referred to in the provision of EU law?
[para_163](6) If the fifth question is answered in the affirmative, is there a direct causal link between the infringement and the damage caused to the beneficiary in the present case where the damage occurred as an indirect result of the interpretation of the measure of secondary legislation by other administrative authorities and courts?’
Consideration of the questions referred
The first question
[para_166]48 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the loss of the right to use land subject to a multiannual commitment under the EAFRD, on account of the termination of the lease following a legislative amendment post-dating the making of that commitment, which introduced new requirements as a condition for the continuation of such an agreement, and where the beneficiary has taken all possible steps, without making unreasonable sacrifices, to retain that right, can constitute ‘ force majeure ’ or ‘exceptional circumstances’.
[para_167]49 Under Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006, Member States may recognise, in particular, the six categories of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, listed in points (a) to (f) of that paragraph, in which they will not require the full or partial reimbursement of aid received by the beneficiary.
[para_168]50 As regards the question whether the termination of lease agreements such as that at issue in the main proceedings can constitute ‘ force majeure ’ or ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 47(1), it must be recalled that, in the context of the EAFRD, the Court has already held that force majeure is any event resulting from abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances, outside the control of the operator concerned, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care, could not have been avoided (judgment of 18 January 2024, Askos Properties , C‑656/22, EU:C:2024:56, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).
[para_169]51 Article 47(1) therefore lays down an optional exception to the principle of reimbursement of the aid by its beneficiary in the event of failure to comply with the commitment undertaken by that beneficiary in order to obtain that aid and with which he or she must comply during the term of a lease or tenancy agreement relating to agricultural land (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 January 2024, Askos Properties , C‑656/22, EU:C:2024:56, paragraph 44).
[para_170]52 It follows from recital 37 and Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006 that the list referred to in the latter provision is non exhaustive and accordingly that ‘ force majeure ’ or ‘exceptional circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision, can cover cases not included on that list. In addition, while that list contains objective facts only, the person concerned who relies on the existence of ‘ force majeure ’ or ‘exceptional circumstances’ must also be in a position to establish that he or she guarded against the consequences of the abnormal event, by taking appropriate steps without making unreasonable sacrifices (judgment of 18 January 2024, Askos Properties , C‑656/22, EU:C:2024:56, paragraphs 48 and 49).
[para_171]53 On the basis of those factors, the Court held, in paragraph 62 of the judgment of 18 January 2024, Askos Properties (C‑656/22, EU:C:2024:56), that a reform such as the August 2015 reform could constitute ‘ force majeure ’ or ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006.
[para_172]54 In the present case, in the light of the doubts expressed by the referring court as to whether it was possible for M.P.M., first, to lease land belonging to persons other than the Bulgarian State and, second, to obtain the required operating permits within the prescribed time limits, M.P.M. does not appear to have been able to comply with the new requirements introduced by the August 2015 reform.
[para_173]55 That said, in accordance with Article 47(2) of Regulation No 1974/2006, which is reproduced in Article 15(2) of Decree No 11/2008, in order to benefit from the optional exception to the principle of reimbursement of aid laid down in Article 47(1) of that regulation, cases of force majeure or exceptional circumstances are to be notified in writing by the beneficiary of that aid, or any person entitled through or under him to the competent authority, together with relevant evidence to the satisfaction of that authority, within 10 working days from the date on which the beneficiary, or the person entitled through or under him, is in a position to do so.
[para_174]56 It is apparent from the order for reference that, although that condition was complied with in respect of Measure 212, it was not, however, complied with in respect of Measure 211.
[para_175]57 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the loss of the right to use land subject to a multiannual commitment under the EAFRD, on account of the termination of the lease following a legislative amendment post-dating the making of that commitment, which introduced new requirements as a condition for the continuation of such an agreement, where that termination constitutes an abnormal and unforeseeable event outside the control of the beneficiary and the latter has taken all possible steps, without making unreasonable sacrifices, to retain that right, can constitute ‘ force majeure ’ or ‘exceptional circumstances’.
The fifth question
[para_177]58 By its fifth question, which it is appropriate to examine in the second place, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether the principle of the liability of a Member State for infringements of EU law attributable to that Member State must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a Member State reproduces only in part the non-exhaustive list of ‘ force majeure or exceptional circumstances’ in Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006, in legislation adopted pursuant to that provision, constitutes a sufficiently serious infringement of Article 47(1).
[para_178]59 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 infringements 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 in 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; of 28 July 2016, Tomášová , C‑168/15, EU:C:2016:602, paragraph 20; of 8 September 2026 Statul Român – Ministerul Finanţelor Publice and Curtea de Apel Bucureşti , C‑163/24, EU:C:2026:722, paragraph 48; and of 8 September 2026, Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others , C‑293/24, EU:C:2026:723, paragraphs 43 and 44).
[para_179]60 In addition, individuals who have been harmed have a right to redress where three 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, 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 44).
[para_180]61 It follows 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, judgments 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 45 to 47, and of 8 September 2026, Statul Român – Ministerul Finanţelor Publice and Curtea de Apel Bucureşti , C‑163/24, EU:C:2026:722, paragraph 53).
[para_181]62 In the present case, as noted in paragraph 51 of the present judgment, Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006 merely provides for an optional exception to the principle of reimbursement of the aid by its beneficiary in the event of failure to comply with the commitment undertaken by that beneficiary in order to obtain that aid and with which he or she had to comply at least during the term of the lease or tenancy agreement relating to agricultural land.
[para_182]63 As is clear from its wording, that provision is drafted in a permissive manner in that it merely confers on Member States the power to ‘recognise, in particular, the [six] categories of force majeure or exceptional circumstances [listed therein]’.
[para_183]64 Accordingly, the Member States are under no obligation whatsoever to provide, in their national law, an exemption from the obligation to repay the aid concerned in the case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances.
[para_184]65 In view of the discretion afforded to them by Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006, they may simply refuse to enshrine, in their national law, the optional exception provided for in that provision. Conversely, they are free to recognise all or some of the six categories of force majeure and exceptional circumstances referred to in that provision, or even to recognise other categories.
[para_185]66 It follows, first, that the fact that a Member State reproduces only in part, in legislation adopted pursuant to Article 47(1), the non-exhaustive list of ‘ force majeure or exceptional circumstances’ in that provision is entirely consistent with that provision. Such a choice on the part of a Member State cannot therefore constitute a sufficiently serious breach of EU law.
[para_186]67 Second, since it is not possible to identify, in Article 47(1), a clearly defined positive obligation incumbent on the Member States, that provision cannot be regarded as a rule of EU law intended to confer rights on individuals, within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 61 of the present judgment.
[para_187]68 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the fifth question is that the principle of the liability of a Member State for infringements of EU law attributable to that Member State must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a Member State reproduces only in part the non-exhaustive list of ‘ force majeure or exceptional circumstances’ in Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006, in legislation adopted pursuant to that provision, does not constitute a sufficiently serious infringement of Article 47(1), since that provision cannot, in any event, be regarded as a rule of EU law intended to confer rights on individuals.
The second to fourth and the sixth questions
[para_189]69 By its second to fourth and sixth questions, the referring court seeks to ascertain, in essence, first, whether the respective conduct of the National Agricultural Fund and the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court) called into question by the applicant in the main proceedings is capable of constituting a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law intended to confer rights on individuals and, second, whether there is a direct link between a sufficiently serious breach of EU law and the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.
[para_190]70 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in the light of the three cumulative conditions for a Member State to incur liability for a breach of EU law, as set out in paragraph 60 above, the fact that one of them has not been satisfied is a sufficient basis on which to dismiss an action for damages (see, by analogy, judgment of 9 September 1999, Lucaccioni v Commission , C‑257/98 P, EU:C:1999:402, paragraph 14, and of 8 May 2003, T. Port v Commission , C‑122/01 P, EU:C:2003:259, paragraph 30).
[para_191]71 First, as regards Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006, it is apparent from the answer given to the fifth question that neither of the first two conditions for a Member State to incur liability for infringement of EU law is satisfied.
[para_192]72 Second, as regards the refusal to make a reference for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, which is the subject of the fourth question, it follows from the case-law of the Court 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 (judgments of 8 September 2026, Statul Român – Ministerul Finanţelor Publice and Curtea de Apel Bucureşti , C‑163/24, EU:C:2025:746, paragraph 89, and of 8 September 2026, Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others , C‑293/24, EU:C:2026:723, paragraph 60).
[para_193]73 In that regard, it should be noted that Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, like Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006, simply confers on the Member States the mere option to recognise as force majeure or exceptional circumstances the six cases listed therein, so that Article 2(2) cannot be regarded as a rule of EU law intended to confer rights on individuals.
[para_194]74 Accordingly, it is not necessary to answer the second to fourth and sixth questions.
Costs
[para_196]75 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 (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:
[para_198]1. 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), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 434/2007 of 20 April 2007,
[para_199]must be interpreted as meaning that the loss of the right to use land subject to a multiannual commitment under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), on account of the termination of the lease following a legislative amendment post-dating that commitment, which introduced new requirements as a condition for the continuation of such an agreement, where that termination constitutes abnormal and unforeseeable events outside the control of the beneficiary and the latter has taken all possible steps, without making unreasonable sacrifices, to retain that right, can constitute ‘ force majeure ’ or ‘exceptional circumstances’.
[para_200]2. The principle of the liability of a Member State for infringements of EU law attributable to that Member State
[para_201]must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a Member State reproduces only in part the non-exhaustive list of ‘ force majeure or exceptional circumstances’ in Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006, as amended by Regulation No 434/2007, in legislation adopted pursuant to that provision, does not constitute a sufficiently serious infringement of Article 47(1), since that provision cannot, in any event, be regarded as a rule of EU law intended to confer rights on individuals.
[para_202][Signatures]
[para_203]* Language of the case: Bulgarian.