1) For the first time, the Court is required to give a ruling on whether the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, and also the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) preclude a rule of national procedure which has the consequence of concentrating before a single court disputes concerning decisions of the national authority responsible for paying agricultural aid under the common agricultural policy (‘the CAP’).

...

3) In this opinion I shall set out the reasons why I consider that the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as not precluding a rule of national procedure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has the effect of concentrating before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad disputes concerning decisions of the national authority responsible for paying agricultural aid under the CAP, provided that that rule does not unreasonably impede the access of individuals to that court, which must be ascertained by the national court.

...

15) The national court has referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘1. Are the principle of effectiveness set out in the case-law [of the Court of Justice] of the European Union and the principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not permitting a national procedural rule such as Article 133(1) of the Code of administrative procedure which makes jurisdiction for administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the European Union’s common agricultural policy dependent solely on the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act, considering that that rule does not take into consideration the place in which the properties are located and the place of residence of the person seeking justice?

2. Is the principle of equivalence set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to be interpreted as not permitting a national procedural rule such as Article 133(1) of the Code of administrative procedure which makes jurisdiction for administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the European Union’s common agricultural policy dependent solely on the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act, if account is taken of paragraph 19 of the transitional and final provisions of the Law amending and supplementing the Code of Administrative Procedure (which concerns jurisdiction for domestic administrative disputes concerning agricultural land)?’

...

16) In essence, the questions from the referring court are whether the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, and Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national procedural rule, such as Article 133(1) of the APK, which has the consequence of concentrating before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad disputes concerning decisions of the national authority responsible for paying agricultural aid under the CAP.

...

17) The German Government, in its written observations, submits that the Court has no jurisdiction to reply to the first question in so far as it relates to Article 47 of the Charter. The German Government considers that the provision at issue in the main proceedings does not concern the implementation of European Union law.
...

19) Article 51(1) of the Charter states that the provisions thereof are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing European Union law. Under Article 51(2), the Charter does not extend the field of application of European Union law beyond the powers of the European Union, or establish any new power or task for the European Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined in the Treaties.

20) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 51 are closely connected. Paragraph (1) sets out the scope of the Article and paragraph (2) confirms it by stating that the Charter does not have the effect of extending the powers and tasks conferred on the European Union by the Treaties. Explicit mention is made here of the logical consequences of the principle of subsidiarity and of the fact that the European Union only has those powers which have been conferred upon it. ( 3 )

...

23) To accept that the present case does not concern the implementation of European Union law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter on the ground that the rule concerned is a rule of national procedure, would amount to ruling out any possibility of examining the compatibility of such a rule with the fundamental rights safeguarded by the Charter.

24) Furthermore, I fail to see how examination of the question referred in the light of Article 47 of the Charter would extend the field of application of European Union law beyond the powers of the European Union or would establish a new power or task for the European Union or, further, modify the power and the tasks defined in the Treaties, within the meaning of Article 51(2) of the Charter.

...

28) Consequently it is in the light of those principles and of the right to an effective remedy expressed in Article 47 of the Charter that the referring court seeks a ruling from the Court of Justice on the question whether those factors preclude national legislation which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad in disputes concerning the payment of agricultural aid under the CAP.

29) However, it seems to me to be appropriate to examine this issue solely from the viewpoint of Article 47 of the Charter.

...

31) The principle of effective judicial protection, which is a fundamental right, includes the right to an effective remedy. ( 8 ) That right is itself embodied in the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, which states that everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal.

...

33) To be precise, the question here is whether an applicant for agricultural aid under the CAP is prevented from exercising his rights under European Union law by the mere fact that any disputes concerning the payment of the aid are concentrated exclusively before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad. The referring court considers that the distance between the applicant’s place of residence and the place where the court is situated could, in certain cases, as in the main proceedings, be an obstacle to exercising the right to an effective remedy because it would prevent physical access to a court or, at least, deter the applicant from instituting proceedings. Consequently there would be a violation of the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter.

...

49) Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, I am of the opinion that the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a rule of national procedure, such as that in Article 133(1) of the APK, which has the effect of concentrating before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad disputes concerning decisions of the national authority responsible for paying agricultural aid under the CAP, provided that the rule in question does not excessively impede the access of individuals to that court, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.

...

50) In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court should give the following reply to the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria):

The first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a rule of national procedure, such as that in Article 133(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, which has the effect of concentrating before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad disputes concerning decisions of the national authority responsible for paying agricultural aid under the common agricultural policy, provided that the rule in question does not excessively impede the access of individuals to that court, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.