Background
Bulgarian farmer M.P.M. leased State agricultural land in 2012 and undertook a five-year commitment under two European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development measures. A 2015 legislative reform imposed new conditions on leases of State and municipal pastures, grassland and meadows. Lacking the financial resources to satisfy those conditions, M.P.M. requested termination of his leases and informed the National Agricultural Fund that he could not complete his commitment.
The Fund later excluded him from the two support measures and ordered repayment of 50% of the aid received for 2013 through 2015. After Bulgarian courts upheld the repayment decisions, M.P.M. sought damages from the State, alleging infringements of EU law by the ministry, the Fund and the Supreme Administrative Court. In the damages proceedings, that court asked the CJEU whether the legislative change could amount to force majeure or exceptional circumstances and whether the conduct of the Bulgarian authorities and courts could trigger Member State liability.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that the loss of the right to use committed land following a later legislative amendment can constitute “force majeure” or “exceptional circumstances” under Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006. That conclusion depends on whether the termination was abnormal and unforeseeable, was outside the beneficiary’s control, and could not have been avoided despite all possible steps that did not require unreasonable sacrifices. The national court must apply those criteria to the facts. The Court also noted that the required written notification appeared to have been made for Measure 212 but not for Measure 211.
The Court separately held that a Member State does not commit a sufficiently serious infringement merely by reproducing only part of Article 47(1)’s non-exhaustive list in national legislation. Article 47(1) gives Member States discretion whether to recognize such exceptions and is not a rule intended to confer rights on individuals for purposes of EU-law State liability. Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 likewise does not confer such rights. Because the cumulative conditions for State liability therefore were not met, the Court found it unnecessary to answer the remaining questions concerning the Fund’s and Supreme Administrative Court’s conduct, the failure to seek a preliminary ruling, review of factual findings, and causation.
Key Takeaways
- A post-commitment legislative reform that causes termination of an agricultural lease may qualify as force majeure or an exceptional circumstance if it was abnormal, unforeseeable, outside the beneficiary’s control and unavoidable without unreasonable sacrifice.
- The examples of force majeure and exceptional circumstances in Article 47(1) are non-exhaustive, but Member States retain discretion over whether and which exceptions to recognize.
- Article 47(1) does not confer individual rights capable of supporting EU-law State liability, and the Court did not decide the remaining alleged breaches or causation issues.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms that changes in legislation can fall within the EU agricultural-law concept of force majeure even though they are not expressly listed in the regulation. Aid beneficiaries must still establish the required factual conditions and comply with the written-notification deadline.
At the same time, the ruling sharply limits damages claims based on Article 47(1): its permissive wording leaves Member States discretion and does not itself confer enforceable individual rights for State-liability purposes.