Background
BX, a Romanian farmer, applied in 2007 for agricultural aid covering 264.71 hectares. After the authorities discovered overlapping claims, BX acknowledged that he used only 45 of the 129.09 hectares he had declared in one commune and submitted an amended declaration. The Romanian payment agency found that his total declared area exceeded the determined area by 46.56% and excluded him from aid.
Romanian courts upheld that decision. A court ruling at last instance rejected BX’s argument that inaccurate maps supplied by the agency caused the overdeclaration, declined to take additional evidence, and refused to seek a preliminary ruling from the CJEU. BX then sought damages from the Romanian State, alleging infringements of EU agricultural-aid rules and the duty under Article 267 TFEU to refer necessary interpretive questions. The court hearing that damages action referred three questions to the CJEU.
The Court’s Holding
The Grand Chamber held that Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003, which prescribed standards for Member States’ agricultural-parcel identification systems, was not intended to confer rights on individuals. Its purpose was institutional: to improve administrative controls and protect the European Union’s financial interests. Its infringement therefore could not support an EU-law damages claim against a Member State.
The Court also held that “factually correct information” under Article 68(1) of Regulation No 796/2004 encompasses both the area declared by a farmer and the farmer’s identification of the parcel used and its boundaries. Although a farmer who submits incorrect information may still avoid reductions or exclusion by proving absence of fault, the Court indicated that BX could not validly rely on that provision in circumstances such as those described, subject to the referring court’s factual checks.
Finally, a last-instance court’s failure to make a preliminary reference cannot by itself establish the sufficiently serious breach required for Member State liability. Such non-compliance must accompany the breach of another EU rule conferring rights on individuals. Because that condition was not met here, the earlier Romanian court’s failure to refer the interpretation of Article 68(1) could not trigger Romania’s liability under EU law.
Key Takeaways
- The EU requirement governing the technical accuracy of agricultural-parcel identification systems protects effective administration and the Union’s finances, not individual rights capable of supporting a State-liability claim.
- A farmer submits “factually correct information” only by correctly stating the relevant area and correctly identifying the parcel and its boundaries.
- A last-instance court’s failure to refer an EU-law question is relevant to seriousness but does not independently create State liability; another rights-conferring EU rule must also have been breached.
Why It Matters
The judgment narrows the route to damages for errors involving national agricultural mapping systems. Farmers cannot convert every administrative obligation imposed on Member States into an individual right enforceable through an EU-law State-liability action.
More broadly, the ruling clarifies the relationship between the preliminary-reference duty and judicial State liability. Failure to refer may contribute to finding a manifest breach, but it is not a standalone basis for compensation under EU law.