C-434/24

Provisional text JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 26 March 2026 (*) ( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) – Single area payment scheme – Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 – Article 32(2) and (4) – Eligible hectare – Article 36(5) – Hectares at the farmer’s disposal – National legislation requiring the production of a lease agreement relating to the agricultural area – Annulment with retroactive effect of that agreement on account of an irregularity in the award procedure which cannot be attributed to that farmer – Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 – Article 63(1) – Eligibility of the application ) In Case C‑434/24, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Court of Appeal, Cluj, Romania), made by decision of 13 May 2024, received at the Court on 18 June 2024, in the proceedings JD v Ministerul Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale – Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură – Centrul Judeţean Bistriţa-Năsăud, THE COURT (First Chamber), composed of F. Biltgen, President of the Chamber, I. Ziemele, A. Kumin, S. Gervasoni (Rapporteur) and M. Bošnjak, Judges, Advocate General: T. Ćapeta, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: –        the Romanian Government, by E. Gane, R. Antonie, B. Ciulacu and A. Wellman, acting as Agents, –        the European Commission, by L. Radu Bouyon and M. Salyková, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 25 September 2025, gives the following Judgment 1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 63(1) 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), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2017 (OJ 2017 L 350, p. 15) (‘Regulation No 1306/2013’), and of the principle of proportionality. 2        The request has been made in proceedings between JD, a farmer, and the Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale – Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură – Centrul Județean Bistrița-Năsăud (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development – Agency for Payments and Interventions in Agriculture – Bistrița-Năsăud District Centre, Romania; ‘the APIA’) concerning the withdrawal by the APIA of aid paid to that farmer, in particular under the single area payment scheme, given the cancellation, with retroactive effect, of the lease agreement relating to the agricultural area on the basis of which the aid was paid.  Legal context  European Union law  Regulation No 1306/2013 3        Regulation No 1306/2013, repealed by Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 187), was applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings. 4        Under Article 58 of that regulation: ‘1.      Member States shall, within the framework of the [common agricultural policy (CAP)], adopt all legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions and take any other measures necessary to ensure effective protection of the financial interests of the [European] Union, in particular to: (a)      check the legality and regularity of operations financed by the Funds; (b)      ensure effective prevention against fraud, especially in areas with a higher level of risk, and which will act as a deterrent, having regard to the costs and benefits as well as the proportionality of the measures; (c)      prevent, detect and correct irregularities and fraud; … (e)      recover undue payments plus interest, and bring legal proceedings to that effect as necessary. …’ 5        Article 60 of that regulation provided: ‘Without prejudice to specific provisions, no advantage provided for under sectoral agricultural legislation shall be granted in favour of a natural or legal person in respect of whom it is established that the conditions required for obtaining such advantages were created artificially, contrary to the objectives of that legislation.’ 6        Article 63(1) of that regulation stated: ‘Where it is found that a beneficiary does not comply with the eligibility criteria, commitments or other obligations relating to the conditions for the granting of the aid or support, as provided for in the sectoral agricultural legislation, the aid shall not be paid or shall be withdrawn in full or in part and, where relevant, the corresponding payment entitlements as referred to in Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608)] shall not be allocated or shall be withdrawn. Where the non-compliance concerns national or Union rules on public procurement, the part of the aid not to be paid or to be withdrawn shall be determined on the basis of the gravity of the non-compliance and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The legality and regularity of the transaction shall only be affected up to the level of the part of the aid not to be paid or to be withdrawn.’ 7        Article 72(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 provided: ‘Each year, a beneficiary of the support referred to in Article 67(2) shall submit an application for direct payments or a payment claim for the relevant area and animal-related rural development measures respectively indicating, where applicable: (a)      all the agricultural parcels on the holding, as well as the non-agricultural area for which support referred to in Article 67(2) is claimed; … (c)      any other information provided for in this Regulation or required with a view to the implementation of the relevant sectoral agricultural legislation or by the Member State concerned. …’  Regulation No 1307/2013 8        Regulation No 1307/2013, repealed by Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and No 1307/2013 (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 1), was applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings. 9        Article 32(2) and (4) of Regulation No 1307/2013 provided: ‘2.      For the purposes of this Title, “eligible hectare” means: … 4.      Areas shall be considered to be eligible hectares only if they comply with the definition of eligible hectare throughout the calendar year, except in the case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances.’ 10      Article 36 of that regulation provided: ‘1.      Member States applying in 2014 the single area payment scheme laid down in Chapter 2 of Title V of [Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16)] may, under the conditions set out in this Regulation, decide to continue to apply that scheme until 31 December 2020 at the latest. They shall notify the [European] Commission of their decision and of the end date of the application of that scheme by 1 August 2014. During the period of application of the single area payment scheme, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this Chapter shall not apply to those Member States, with the exception of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1), Article 23(6) as well as Article 32(2) to (6). 2.      The single area payment shall be granted on an annual basis for each eligible hectare declared by the farmer in accordance with point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 72(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. … … 5.      Except in the case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, the hectares referred to in paragraph 2 shall be at the farmer’s disposal on a date fixed by the Member State, which shall be no later than the date fixed in that Member State for amendment of the aid application referred to in Article 72(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. …’  Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 11      Article 14(1)(f) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69), which was repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1173 of 31 May 2022 laying down rules for the application of 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 (OJ 2022 L 183, p. 23), provided: ‘The single application or payment claim shall contain all information necessary to establish eligibility for the aid and/or support, in particular: … (f)      where appropriate, any supporting documents needed to establish the eligibility for the scheme and/or measure concerned’.  Romanian law 12      Article 1254(1) and (2) of the Codul civil (Civil Code) provides: ‘(1)      A contract which is rendered null and void or which is cancelled is deemed never to have been concluded. (2)      The cancellation of the contract shall, in accordance with the conditions laid down by law, result in the annulment of successive acts concluded on the basis of that contract.’ 13      Article 6(1) of Ordonanță de urgență a Guvernului nr. 66/2011 privind prevenirea, constatarea și sancționarea neregulilor apărute în obținerea și utilizarea fondurilor europene și/sau a fondurilor publice naționale aferente acestora (Government Emergency Order No 66/2011 regarding prevention, ascertainment and penalisation of irregularities associated with the collection and use of European funds and/or national public funds relating thereto), of 29 June 2011 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 461 of 30 June 2011), is worded as follows: ‘The authorities responsible for the European funds shall be obliged to exclude, in whole or in part, from the reimbursement/payment of the expenses incurred and declared by the beneficiaries any expenditure that does not comply with the conditions of legality, regularity and conformity laid down by the national and [EU] legislation in force, where they identify such expenditure in the payment claim verification process.’ 14      Article 8 of Ordonanță de urgență a Guvernului nr. 3/2015 pentru aprobarea schemelor de plăți care se aplică în agricultură în perioada 2015-2020 și pentru modificarea art. 2 din Legea nr. 36/1991 privind societățile agricole și alte forme de asociere în agricultură (Government Emergency Order No 3/2015 approving the payment schemes applicable to agriculture in the period 2015 to 2020 and amending Article 2 of Law No 36/1991 on agricultural companies and other forms of associations in agriculture), of 18 March 2015 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 191 of 23 March 2015), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, provides: ‘(1)      In order to benefit from the direct payments provided for in Article 1(2), farmers must: … n)      produce, when submitting an application for a single payment or the amendments made thereto, the necessary documents proving that the agricultural land, including ecological focus areas, is available to them or, where necessary, a copy of Annex No 24 issued by the civil register of administrative territorial units. The documents proving that the agricultural land is available to the farmer must be signed before the single payment application is submitted and must be valid on the date on which the application is submitted; … (6)      The documents proving that the hectares of agricultural land are available to the farmer and/or that that farmer possesses livestock shall be determined by order of the [ministrul agriculturii și dezvoltării rurale (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development)] and shall be presented when submitting single payment applications, on the basis of the regimes/measures/payments requested. …’ 15      Article 5(2) of Ordinul ministrului agriculturii și dezvoltării rurale nr. 619/2015 pentru aprobarea criteriilor de eligibilitate, condițiilor specifice și a modului de implementare a schemelor de plăți prevăzute la art. 1 alin. (2) și (3) din Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 3/2015 pentru aprobarea schemelor de plăți care se aplică în agricultură în perioada 2015-2020 și pentru modificarea art. 2 din Legea nr. 36/1991 privind societățile agricole și alte forme de asociere în agricultură, precum și a condițiilor specifice de implementare pentru măsurile compensatorii de dezvoltare rurală aplicabile pe terenurile agricole, prevăzute în Programul Național de Dezvoltare Rurală 2014-2020 (Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 619/2015 approving the eligibility criteria, the specific conditions and the detailed rules governing implementation of the payment schemes provided for in Article 1(2) and (3) of Government Emergency Order No 3/2015 approving the payment schemes applicable to agriculture in the period 2015 to 2020 and amending Article 2 of Law No 36/1991 on agricultural companies and other forms of associations in agriculture, as well as the specific conditions governing the implementation of rural development countervailing measures applicable to agricultural land, as laid down in the National Rural Development Programme 2014-2020), published in Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 234 of 6 April 2015, provides: ‘The documents proving that the eligible land declared is available to the farmer, in accordance with Article 8(1)(n) of the order, shall be: a)      a certificate consistent with the agricultural register, relating to the year of the request, completed on the basis of the template provided in Annex No 1; and b)      a copy, consistent with the original, of the lease/concession agreement relating to the agricultural area, concluded between the farmer and the administrative territorial units, as appropriate; c)      a copy, consistent with the original, of the concession/lease agreement relating to the agricultural area, concluded between the farmer and the [Agenția Domeniilor Statului (State Property Office)], as appropriate.’  The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 16      On 19 April 2018, the local council of the municipality of Chiochiș (Romania) adopted a decision approving the lease of municipal pastureland by an open call for tenders. 17      On 24 May 2018, JD concluded with that municipality a lease agreement relating to an area of municipal pastureland. 18      On 10 May 2019, JD submitted an application for a single payment, for the year 2019, in respect of that area. That payment, which JD obtained, was financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in particular the single area payment scheme, and by national funds. 19      By judgment of the same day, the procedure for awarding municipal pastureland implemented by the municipality of Chiochiş and acts resulting from it, including the lease agreement in favour of JD, were annulled on account of an irregularity in that procedure. It was found that the call for tenders by direct negotiation had not been published within the time limit of five days, set by the decision of the local council of the municipality, with the result that the evaluation committee had not awarded the pastureland to JD lawfully. That judgment stated, in essence, that the cancellation of the lease agreement did not stem from fault on the part of JD, but from a failure of that municipality to fulfil one of its obligations. 20      JD brought an appeal against that judgment before the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Court of Appeal, Cluj, Romania). On 5 March 2020, that court dismissed that appeal as having been brought out of time. 21      On 24 November 2022, the APIA issued a statement that JD no longer held any title to the areas to which the cancelled lease agreement related. It called for the reimbursement of the financial aid of 83 334.01 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately EUR 16 743) granted following the application of 10 May 2019. 22      Since the APIA dismissed JD’s complaint against that statement, she brought an action before the Tribunalul Bistrița-Năsăud (Regional Court, Bistrița-Năsăud, Romania). 23      By judgment of 15 June 2023, that court dismissed JD’s action directed against the APIA’s statement of 24 November 2022. It found that, first, the cancelled lease agreement was deemed never to have existed, in accordance with Article 1254 of the Civil Code, secondly, Government Emergency Order No 66/2011 required farmers to comply with the general conditions for eligibility for EU aid, including the existence of a valid document proving that the land is available to the person submitting the application for aid, and thirdly, JD was required to repay the sums unduly received, while clarifying that that repayment did not constitute an administrative penalty and so the absence of fault was not a relevant factor. 24      JD challenged that judgment before the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Court of Appeal, Cluj), which is the referring court. 25      That court is uncertain whether the concept of ‘non-compliance with the eligibility criteria’, as set out in Article 63(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, includes a situation where, for reasons independent of any fault on the part of the beneficiary of the aid, the lease agreement which was valid when the eligibility conditions for that aid were assessed is cancelled with retroactive effect. It is of the opinion that that question must be answered in the negative, since the beneficiary had complied, in practice, with the eligibility criteria on the date on which the application was submitted and up until the agreement was cancelled, and cannot be accused of any other irregularity, in particular as regards the use of the land. The cancellation of that agreement must accordingly be taken into account in order to ascertain whether a title to the land at issue existed from the date of that cancellation. 26      The referring court adds that, in the event that the Court of Justice holds that the cancellation with retroactive effect, in accordance with national legislation, of a lease agreement, which was valid when the conditions for eligibility for EU aid were assessed, is a situation in which the beneficiary does not comply with those conditions, irrespective of the date on which that cancellation occurred, it harbours doubts concerning the possibility of applying the principle of proportionality to the withdrawal of the aid. 27      In those circumstances, the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Court of Appeal, Cluj) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1)      In the interpretation of Article 63(1) of [Regulation No 1306/2013], does a situation in which a beneficiary does not satisfy the conditions for eligibility include a situation in which a contract which was valid at the time of the assessment of the conditions for eligibility is cancelled with retroactive effect in accordance with national legislation, regardless of the time at which that cancellation occurs, or does it not include such a situation? (2)      If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, can the principle of proportionality apply with regard to the withdrawal of payment under Article 63(1) of [Regulation No 1306/2013] or not?’  Consideration of the questions referred  The first question 28      It should be noted as a preliminary point that, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the referring court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it. The Court has a duty to interpret all provisions of EU law which national courts require in order to decide the actions pending before them, even if those provisions are not expressly indicated in the questions referred to the Court by those courts (see judgments of 18 March 1993, Viessmann, C‑280/91, EU:C:1993:103, paragraph 17, and of 19 December 2019, Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers, C‑263/18, EU:C:2019:1111, paragraph 31). 29      In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that, by its first question, the referring court seeks to establish the extent to which the competent national administration can find that aid granted to a farmer does not comply with the eligibility criteria in a situation where a lease agreement, which was provided in support of the application for aid in order to prove, in accordance with national legislation, that the agricultural area was at that farmer’s disposal, and which was valid when that application is assessed, is subsequently cancelled, with retroactive effect, on account of an irregularity in the procedure for awarding that agreement, which cannot be attributed to that farmer. More specifically, it is apparent from that request that that court is uncertain whether, in such a situation, the competent national administration can find that that farmer does not comply with the eligibility criteria irrespective of the date on which that agreement was cancelled. 30      In so far as the first question refers to Article 63(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, it should be noted that, under the first subparagraph of that provision, where it is found that a beneficiary of aid does not comply with the eligibility criteria for that aid, commitments or other obligations relating to the conditions for the granting of the aid or support, as provided for in the sectoral agricultural legislation, the aid shall not be paid or shall be withdrawn in full or in part. 31      The first subparagraph of Article 63(1) of that regulation concerns the legal consequences of failing to comply with the eligibility criteria, commitments or other obligations (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 April 2024, Baramlay, C‑6/23, EU:C:2024:294, paragraph 67). However, that provision does not define those criteria, which vary according to the aid scheme or the support concerned. 32      Since it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the aid application at issue in the main proceedings concerns in particular the single area payment scheme, it should be found that, in order to assess whether the beneficiary of an aid under that scheme complies with the eligibility criteria, not only are the provisions of Regulation No 1306/2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP relevant, but so are those of Regulation No 1307/2013 on direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the CAP. 33      In those circumstances, it must be found that, by its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Regulation No 1306/2013 and Regulation No 1307/2013 must be interpreted as precluding the competent national administration from finding that a single area payment application has become ineligible on the sole ground that the lease agreement relating to the agricultural area concerned by that application, which was produced in support of that application in order to prove, in accordance with national legislation, that the agricultural area is at the farmer’s disposal, and which was valid when that application was assessed, was subsequently cancelled, with retroactive effect, on account of an irregularity in the procedure for awarding that agreement, which cannot be attributed to that farmer, irrespective of the date on which that agreement was cancelled. 34      Under Article 36(1) of Regulation No 1307/2013, Member States that applied in 2014 the single area payment scheme laid down in Chapter 2 of Title V of Regulation No 73/2009 could, under the conditions set out in the former regulation, decide to continue to apply that scheme until 31 December 2020 at the latest. 35      The single area payment scheme is a decoupled aid scheme, that is to say, it is wholly unconnected with agricultural production. It provides direct support to income, which is intended to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers who genuinely carry out an agricultural activity and, accordingly, actually have at their disposal an agricultural area on which that activity is carried out (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, paragraph 52). 36      Under Article 36(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013, the single area payment is to be granted on an annual basis for each eligible hectare declared by the farmer in accordance with point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 72(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. 37      In the first place, benefiting from the single area payment is conditional on the area declared by the farmer complying with the definition of the concept of ‘eligible hectare’, within the meaning of Article 32(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013, which covers any agricultural area on which an agricultural activity is carried out, and that area must be allocated to a holding (judgment of 4 July 2024, Asoprovac, C‑708/22, EU:C:2024:573, paragraph 18). In accordance with Article 32(4) of that regulation, the declared area is to be considered an eligible hectare only if it complies with the definition of eligible hectare throughout the calendar year concerned, except in the case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances. 38      In the second place, benefiting from the single area payment is also subject to the condition, laid down in Article 36(5) of Regulation No 1307/2013, that, except in the case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, the eligible hectares declared by the farmer are to be at his or her disposal on a date fixed by the Member State, which must be no later than the date fixed in that Member State for amendment of the aid application referred to in Article 72(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. 39      According to the case-law, for the purpose of determining whether an area is ‘at the farmer’s disposal’, within the meaning of Article 36(5) of Regulation No 1307/2013, that regulation does not require that farmer to produce a formal legal document establishing his or her ‘right to use’ the area in question; the demonstration of the actual use of that area and of sufficient autonomy on the part of that farmer for the purposes of carrying out his or her agricultural activity on that area are sufficient for that purpose (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, paragraph 53). 40      In the third place, it should be recalled that, under Article 60 of Regulation No 1306/2013, without prejudice to specific provisions, no advantage provided for under sectoral agricultural legislation is to be granted in favour of a natural or legal person in respect of whom it is established that the conditions required for obtaining such advantages were created artificially, contrary to the objectives of that legislation. 41      The Court has already ruled that evidence of an abusive practice by the potential beneficiary of aid requires, first, a combination of objective circumstances in which, despite formal compliance with the conditions laid down by the relevant rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved, and, secondly, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the EU rules by creating artificially the conditions laid down for obtaining it (judgment of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑176/20, EU:C:2022:274, paragraph 70 and the case-law cited). 42      In a situation where the lease agreement relating to the agricultural area declared by the farmer in the context of a single area payment application, which was valid when that application was submitted, is subsequently cancelled, with retroactive effect, on account of an irregularity in the procedure for awarding that agreement, which cannot be attributed to that farmer, the competent national administration cannot find, for that reason alone, that the criteria provided for in Article 32(2) and (4) and in Article 36(5) of Regulation No 1307/2013 have not been complied with, irrespective of the date on which that agreement was cancelled. 43      In the event that the lease agreement is cancelled after the end of the calendar year in respect of which the single area payment is applied for, those criteria are, in principle, complied with. That cancellation of the lease agreement relating to the agricultural area, despite its retroactive nature, does not make it possible either to find that the hectares declared were not covered by the definition of ‘eligible hectare’ for the duration of the calendar year concerned, in accordance with Article 32(2) and (4) of Regulation No 1307/2013, or to find that the agricultural area was, factually, not at the farmer’s disposal on the date set by the Member State pursuant to Article 36(5) of that regulation. In particular, that cancellation cannot, in itself, call into question the referring court’s finding that the farmer actually used that agricultural area and had sufficient autonomy for the purposes of carrying out her agricultural activities on that date, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 39 above. 44      Furthermore, given that, in the situation indicated in paragraph 42 above, the cancellation of the lease agreement stems from an irregularity in the procedure for awarding that agreement, which cannot be attributed to that farmer, that cancellation cannot, in itself, unless the subjective element referred to in the case-law cited in paragraph 41 above is established, result in the referring court finding that that farmer artificially created the conditions required with a view to obtaining the single area payment, contrary to the objectives of the legislation, or attempted to make unlawful use of land belonging to others, with the aim of circumventing the EU legislation relating to the single payment scheme within the meaning of the case-law of the Court (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited). 45      It should be stated that the fact that the cancellation of the lease agreement in relation to the area declared for the purpose of the single area payment stems from the failure by a municipality to comply with public procurement rules does not entail, in itself, the ineligibility of the application for aid sought from the competent national authority. Unlike other aid or support schemes under the CAP, no provision of EU law makes the grant of a single area payment conditional on the implementation of those rules. Although the second subparagraph of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, like the first subparagraph thereof, sets out the consequences of failing to comply with the eligibility criteria, commitments or other obligations relating to the conditions for the granting of the aid or support, where that failure concerns national or EU rules on public procurement, it has neither the object nor the effect of setting a condition rendering all aid under the single area payment scheme subject to compliance with that legislation. 46      That being the case, under point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 72(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, and Article 14(1) of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014, the Member States enjoy a measure of discretion as regards the supporting documents and the evidence to be required from an applicant in relation to the areas covered by the application (see, by analogy, judgment of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, paragraph 60). 47      In addition, under point (c) of Article 58(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, Member States have a measure of discretion when choosing the national measures which they consider necessary in order to prevent and penalise irregularities and fraud effectively (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, paragraph 62). 48      The exercise by Member States of their discretion in respect of the evidence to be provided in support of an aid application is subject to certain limits, particularly as regards the possibility of requiring the applicant to produce a valid legal document attesting to his or her right to use the areas covered by that application. In that context, the national legislation which gives effect to that discretion must be consistent with the objectives pursued by EU law on direct financial support for farmers and with the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of proportionality, in accordance with which measures implemented through provisions must be appropriate for attaining the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, paragraph 63). 49      Accordingly, Regulation No 1307/2013 does not preclude national legislation which makes the grant of support under the single area payment scheme subject to an obligation on the applicant to prove that he or she has a ‘right to use’ the agricultural area covered by that application, provided that it is consistent with the objectives pursued by the EU legislation concerned, as well as with the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of proportionality (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, paragraph 68). 50      It is apparent from the written observations from the Romanian Government that, subject to verification by the referring court, Romanian legislation lays down, under point (n) Article 8(1) of Government Emergency Order No 3/2015, in the version applicable at the date of the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings, the obligation for the farmer seeking aid under the single area payment scheme to provide evidence that the agricultural area is available to him or her. It follows from those same observations that, under Order No 619/2015, among the documents proving that the eligible land declared is available to the farmer is included, in particular, a copy, consistent with the original, of the lease agreement relating to the agricultural area, concluded between the farmer and a municipality. 51      The provision of evidence that the agricultural area is available to the farmer, provided for by Romanian law, constitutes, subject to verification by the referring court, an eligibility criterion, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, since the provision of such evidence is an indispensable prerequisite for the validity of an application for aid (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 April 2024, Baramlay, C‑6/23, EU:C:2024:294, paragraph 66). 52      While it is for the national court to verify whether the administrative practice at issue in the main proceedings is consistent with the objectives pursued by EU law on direct financial support for farmers and with the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of proportionality, in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, the Court has jurisdiction to give the national court full guidance on the interpretation of EU law in order to enable it to determine the issue of compatibility for the purposes of the case before it (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited). 53      However, it must be found that the practice of the competent administrative authority, in accordance with which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the single area payment application is found to be ineligible where the lease agreement relating to the agricultural area is cancelled, irrespective of the date on which that cancellation occurred, is not appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the objective of the legislation, as stated in paragraph 35 above, which intends to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers where they genuinely carry out an agricultural activity and, accordingly, actually have at their disposal an agricultural area on which that activity is carried out. 54      In the event that the lease agreement is cancelled after the end of the calendar year in respect of which the single area payment is applied for, it must be found, as follows from paragraph 43 above, that the eligibility criteria provided for by EU law are, in principle, complied with. Furthermore, by contrast with a situation in which a farmer is not in a position to provide a document proving that he or she has a ‘right to use’ the agricultural area, which is valid when he or she applies for the single area payment, the situation in which the lease agreement intended to prove that ‘right of use’ is cancelled after the end of the calendar year concerned on account of an irregularity in the procedure for awarding that agreement, which cannot be attributed to that farmer, cannot, in the light of the reason for that cancellation, reveal the existence of a situation in which that farmer seeks to make unlawful use of land belonging to others, with the aim of circumventing EU legislation within the meaning of the case-law of the Court (see judgment of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited). 55      To find, in such a situation, that the single area payment application does not comply with the eligibility criterion provided for by national law is likely, contrary to the objective of the legislation, to deprive that farmer of direct support to income, even though, according to the explanations of the referring court, that farmer genuinely carried out an agricultural activity and, accordingly, actually had at his or her disposal an agricultural area on which that activity was carried out. 56      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Regulation No 1306/2013 and Regulation No 1307/2013 must be interpreted as precluding the competent national administration from finding that a single area payment application has become ineligible on the sole ground that the lease agreement relating to the agricultural area concerned by that application, which was produced in support of that application in order to prove, in accordance with national legislation, that the agricultural area is at the farmer’s disposal, and which was valid when that application was assessed, was subsequently cancelled, with retroactive effect, on account of an irregularity in the procedure for awarding that agreement, which cannot be attributed to that farmer, irrespective of the date on which that agreement was cancelled.  The second question 57      It is apparent from the order for reference that the second question is put only in the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative. In view of the answer given to the first question, there is no need to answer the second question.  Costs 58      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 (First Chamber) hereby rules: 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, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2017, and Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 must be interpreted as precluding the competent national administration from finding that a single area payment application has become ineligible on the sole ground that the lease agreement relating to the agricultural area concerned by that application, which was produced in support of that application in order to prove, in accordance with national legislation, that the agricultural area is at the farmer’s disposal, and which was valid when that application was assessed, was subsequently cancelled, with retroactive effect, on account of an irregularity in the procedure for awarding that agreement, which cannot be attributed to that farmer, irrespective of the date on which that agreement was cancelled. [Signatures] *      Language of the case: Romanian.