# C_2015262EN.01001002.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 8 June 2015 — ZS ‘Ezernieki’ v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-273/15)

(2015/C 262/14)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ZS ‘Ezernieki’

Appellant:

Respondent: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the application of the legal effects provided for in Article 71(2) of Regulation No 817/2004 (1) to agri-environmental support granted for the originally declared part of an area, in respect of which the prior conditions for grant of that support were complied with for five years, compatible with the objective of Regulations Nos 1257/99 (2) and 817/2004 and with the principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the application of the legal effects provided for in Article 71(2) of Regulation No 817/2004 (1) to agri-environmental support granted for the originally declared part of an area, in respect of which the prior conditions for grant of that support were complied with for five years, compatible with the objective of Regulations Nos 1257/99 (2) and 817/2004 and with the principle of proportionality?

1

2

| 2. | Must Article 17, in conjunction with Article 52, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the application of the legal effects provided for in Article 71(2) of Regulation No 817/2004 to agri-environmental support granted for part of an area, in respect of which the prior conditions for grant of that support were complied with for five years, is compatible with those articles? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 17, in conjunction with Article 52, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the application of the legal effects provided for in Article 71(2) of Regulation No 817/2004 to agri-environmental support granted for part of an area, in respect of which the prior conditions for grant of that support were complied with for five years, is compatible with those articles?

| 3. | Must Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that it is permitted to refrain from applying the legal effects which a Regulation and the provisions adopted by a Member State in accordance with that Regulation regard as obligatory, if, in a specific case, there are special circumstances in the context of which the limitation concerned may be considered to be disproportionate? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that it is permitted to refrain from applying the legal effects which a Regulation and the provisions adopted by a Member State in accordance with that Regulation regard as obligatory, if, in a specific case, there are special circumstances in the context of which the limitation concerned may be considered to be disproportionate?

| 4. | In the light of the objective of Regulations Nos 1257/99 and 817/2004 and the limits laid down therein on the discretion allowed to the Member States, is it acceptable for the court examining the substance of the case not to apply in its full scope Article 84 of Decree No 295 of the Council of Ministers of 23 March 2010‘on the grant, administration and supervision of agricultural development support from the State and from the European Union for the improvement of the agricultural and natural landscape’, a provision which concerns the repayment of aid, where the application of that provision in the specific circumstances could lead to infringement of the principle of proportionality, as that principle is interpreted in the legal system of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the light of the objective of Regulations Nos 1257/99 and 817/2004 and the limits laid down therein on the discretion allowed to the Member States, is it acceptable for the court examining the substance of the case not to apply in its full scope Article 84 of Decree No 295 of the Council of Ministers of 23 March 2010‘on the grant, administration and supervision of agricultural development support from the State and from the European Union for the improvement of the agricultural and natural landscape’, a provision which concerns the repayment of aid, where the application of that provision in the specific circumstances could lead to infringement of the principle of proportionality, as that principle is interpreted in the legal system of the Member State?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

2

---