The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJ), based in Seville, has confirmed the decision of the Andalusian Government to withdraw an aid of 46,125 euros granted to a young farmer after verifying that she abandoned the activity before the mandatory deadline without notifying the Administration. The lack of communication of this cessation of activity in due time has undoubtedly determined the final decision of the Andalusian judicial body to withdraw the aid of Joven Agricultor.
The Contentious-Administrative Chamber, through the ruling STSJ AND 3232/2026 of February 26, 2026 (which can be consulted at this link from the Judiciary), dismisses the appeal filed against the resolution of the Department of Agriculture that agreed to the reimbursement of the amounts received. The court concludes that the administrative action was in accordance with the law as there was a clear breach of the conditions of the subsidy.
The plaintiff alleged that the closure of the operation was due to the increase in costs caused by the crisis derived from COVID-19, which made it unfeasible to continue the activity. However, the Administration considered that no cause of force majeure that justified non-compliance was proven or communicated in a timely manner.
The Board detected the abandonment of the activity without justification
The autonomous Administration based its decision on the fact that the beneficiary did not comply with the essential obligations of the aid. Specifically, it did not request the third payment nor present the necessary documentation to prove compliance with the approved business plan.
Furthermore, it was proven that the agricultural holding was abandoned within the minimum required maintenance period. As stated in the ruling, the beneficiary “had abandoned agricultural activity (…) without communicating it at any time”, which prevented the Administration from verifying compliance with the commitments made.
This non-compliance directly affects the purpose of the subsidy, since the objective was to guarantee the continuity of agricultural activity during a certain period.
The TSJ rejects “force majeure” due to increased costs
One of the plaintiff’s main arguments was that the increase in production costs, both in fertilizers and energy or fuel, caused continued losses that forced it to close the operation. He could not maintain the activity and that is why he decided to stop it, in order not to have more losses.
Likewise, the court considers that this situation was not sufficient to prove force majeure. The ruling indicates that it is not enough to allege economic difficulties, but that it is necessary to prove them and communicate them within the legal period. In this sense, it emphasizes that “there is no document in the file (…) that reflects structural difficulties beyond the generic allegation of force majeure.”
In this way, remember that the regulations require you to notify this type of circumstances within a period of 15 days, a requirement that was not met in this case either, since it was not notified in time.
Public aid requires meeting all requirements, including formal ones.
The Chamber insists that the subsidies are “modal donations”, which implies that their granting is conditional on strict compliance with the established obligations.
In this sense, the court highlights that failure to comply with formal obligations, such as providing justification within the deadline or reporting incidents, may lead to the reimbursement of aid. As stated in the resolution, “failure to comply with formal obligations (…) may also determine (…) the refund of the amount.”
Furthermore, remember that it is up to the beneficiary to prove that they have met both the material and formal requirements required by the regulations.
The TSJ confirms that it has to return the amount collected
The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia rejects the appeal in its entirety and confirms the obligation to return the 46,125 euros received, considering that the non-compliance has not been justified nor has the existence of force majeure been proven.
The ruling concludes that the challenged resolution is in accordance with the law, since “said non-compliance has not been refuted” and there is no cause to justify the loss of aid. In addition, it imposes on the plaintiff the payment of procedural costs, with a maximum limit set by the court.