The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJA), based in Seville, has endorsed the decision of the Andalusian Government to annul nearly 27,000 euros in aid from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) requested by a farmer and to also impose on her a financial penalty of 14,593.01 euros for declaring plots whose right to use was not duly accredited.
Specifically, the affected person lost the 19,654.95 euros corresponding to the basic payment and saw the requested green payment reduced (10,140.67 euros), of which she only received 3,021.82 euros after excluding some 30 hectares that were not accepted.
In the ruling, handed down on November 27, 2025 (appeal 280/2023), the Contentious-Administrative Chamber dismisses the appeal filed against the resolution of the Ministry of Agriculture that confirmed the denial of direct payments for the 2021/2022 campaign and the imposition of penalties.
Contracts signed with a company that was not the owner
The Administration detected a control incident (Incident 242) when verifying that the plots declared in the single CAP application were not in the name of the leasing company.
Although the farmer provided lease contracts and defended that she acted in good faith, paying rents and taxes and using the fallow lands during the campaign without opposition from third parties, the Board verified that the limited company that leased those lands to her was not the cadastral owner.
To justify its legitimization, the company claimed to act under a “private mandate” and pointed out the existence of a chain of representation that involved another entity, supposedly authorized by the real owners. However, neither sufficient documentation was provided to prove this chain of mandates nor did the cadastral owners confirm that they had granted authorization.
Given this lack of documentary support, the court concludes that the Administration cannot grant public aid based on documents that do not have “the appearance of truth”, since this could facilitate the creation of artificial conditions for the improper collection of European funds.
The Chamber emphasizes that it is not judging the civil validity of the lease contract, an issue that would correspond to civil jurisdiction, but rather compliance with the requirements required to access CAP aid.
What does the law require to collect CAP aid?
The ruling recalls that article 15 of Royal Decree 1075/2014 obliges the applicant to document the right to use or exploit the declared plots. Specifically, it requires:
- Submit relevant documentation proving the legal relationship with the land.
- Demonstrate the effective right to use or exploit agricultural areas.
- Prove that the plots are really available to the farmer.
- That said availability is valid on the end date of the modification period of the single request.
In this case, the court considers that the contracts provided did not meet that standard, as the authorization of the real owners was not proven.
Without defenselessness or “double punishment”
The farmer also claimed helplessness, understanding that the Administration carried out actions with the owners and the leasing company without informing her. However, the TSJ rejects this argument by stating in the file that it was notified of the incident and was able to make allegations in the corresponding hearing procedures. He also invoked the principle non bis in idemconsidering that he was being sanctioned twice: first, with the loss of aid and, second, with an additional fine.
The Court rejects this thesis and clearly distinguishes between both consequences:
- The loss of aid (Basic Payment and part of the Green Payment) is a direct consequence of not meeting the eligibility requirements.
- The fine of 14,593.01 euros is the only punitive penalty for declaring surfaces without accredited right.
According to the breakdown included in the ruling, the farmer stopped receiving 19,654.95 euros corresponding to the Basic Payment and suffered a substantial reduction in the requested Green Payment (10,140.67 euros), of which she was only paid 3,021.82 euros after excluding some 30 hectares that were not accepted.
The TSJ confirms the resolution and the sentence for costs
The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia completely rejects the contentious-administrative appeal, declares the resolution of the Board in accordance with the law and orders the appellant to pay the procedural costs, with a maximum limit of 1,500 euros.
The ruling insists that, in the case of public aid financed with European funds, the Administration must exercise extreme control to avoid fraud or statements based on titles that do not sufficiently prove the real availability of the land. However, the sentence is not final and an appeal can be filed against it for unification of doctrine.