Rejection of a preliminary ruling to the CJEU without reason. Violation of a fair trial
JUDGMENT
Bio Farmland Betriebs S.R.L. v. Romania 13.07.2021 (app. no. 43639/17)
SUMMARY
Fair trial and EU law. Rejection by the Court of Appeal of a request for a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Administrative dispute for subsidy of an agricultural company from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Following the company’s request for a referral to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, the national court ruled that the request was unreasonable, failing to refer to the three criteria in the WEU’s Cilfit judgment.
The ECtHR found a violation of the right to a fair trial (article 6 par. 1 of the ECHR) and awarded the applicant company 1,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage.
PROVISION
Article 6 par. 1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Bio Farmland Betriebs S.R.L., is a limited company with its headquarters in Romania,
specialising in farming.
The case concerns a complaint by Bio Farmland Betriebs about the Court of Appeal’s rejection of its
request for a preliminary ruling to be sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
Having applied in 2011 for rural development support from the Bucharest Agency for Payments and
Intervention in Agriculture (APIA) in order to have access to payments from the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the applicant company was declared eligible for a grant. It
repeated its application in 2012. In December 2012 the APIA issued a decision on payment subject to
multiannual penalties, reducing the support awarded by 50%. The applicant company brought an
administrative action in the Court of Appeal but was unsuccessful.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant company alleges that
the Court of Appeal rejected its application for a preliminary ruling to be sought from the CJEU
without giving any reasons for its decision.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
In the present case, the questions referred by the applicant company from the Court of Appeal to the CJEU471532, requesting the interpretation of various articles of European law, were formulated precisely and in accordance with the procedures required by national law. This was not disputed by the parties. The Court of Appeal did not declare the applicant company’s objection inadmissible, but rejected it after examining the merits of the case.
Subsequently, responding to the request for a preliminary inquiry into the CJEUsubmitted by the applicant company, the Court of Appeal merely stated that “it was not necessary to discuss the request for referral to the CJEU”. Therefore, the Court of Appeal did not explicitly refer to one of the three Cilfit criteria, and there is nothing to indicate that it considered that these provisions of EU law “had already been interpreted” by the WEU. The Government, on the other hand, seem to consider that it is clear in the Court of Appeal’s decision that, for the judges who heard the case, the correct application of European Union law was obviously necessary and that, therefore, the questions were not relevant. It argued in this case that, in its decision of 28 October 2016, the Court of Appeal stated that the provisions of decision no. 161/2012 do not contravene EU legislation.
However, the ECtHR does not distinguish in the reasoning of the decision of the Court of Appeal any evidence that suggests that this would be its approach.
Of course, the decision of the Court of Appeal refers at least to the introductory part to the questions referred by the applicant company (using the formula “it was not necessary to discuss the referral request to the CJEU”). However, this decision does not justify why it was considered that the questions raised were not worth discussing and forwarding to the CJEU (Sanofi Pasteur § 78, and Schipani and Others v. Italy, no. 38369/09, §§ 70- 71, July 21, 2015). The simple fact that it is stated that the provisions of decision no. 161/2012 were not contrary to Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 is not a clear answer as to the reason for the refusal (see for a different situation, Sindicatul Pro Asistență socială v. Romania (dec.), No. 24456/13, §§ 29-30, 6 March 2014, where national courts explained why European provisions did not apply). In addition, the Court of Appeal’s analysis referred to in Article 18 (1) of Regulation (EU) no. 65/2011 hardly covered the absence of a statement of reasons for refusing to ask questions to the CJEU on the other European provisions mentioned in the referral request. In the Court’s view, the reasoning of the Court of Appeal’s decision therefore does not make it possible to determine whether those questions were examined in the light of the Cilfit criteria and, if so, in the light of which criteria the appellate court decided not to refer them to the WEU. .
With regard to the Government’s argument that the District Court had provided in its decision of 19 May 2015 a detailed statement of reasons for the rejection of the application, it noted that before that court the applicant company had not asked questions identical to those before the Court of Appeal. In addition, after the annulment of the decision of 16 June 2015 issued by the District Court, the case was referred to the District Court for a new decision, while its decision of 19 May 2015 is no longer in force. Finally, since the decision to be issued by the District Court is subject to appeal, the criteria which it must apply to reject the company’s claim were not those set out in the Cilfit case-law.
In view of the above, the Court has concluded that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case.
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 1,500
costs and expenses: EUR 5,000
