# C_2014085EN.01001403.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/14 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2013 — Johannes Demmer v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

(Case C-684/13)

2014/C 85/27

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Johannes Demmer

Defendant: Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the requirement that an agricultural area not be used for ‘non-agricultural activities’ within the meaning of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 1782/2003( 1 ) and the requirement that an agricultural area be used for ‘an agricultural activity or ... predominantly used for agricultural activities’ within the meaning of Article 34(2)(a) of Regulation No 73/2009( 2 ) be interpreted as meaning that it is a condition for aid that the primary purpose of an area’s use be agricultural?
(a)
If so, the Court of Justice is requested to specify what parameters must be taken into account in deciding what purpose of use is the ‘primary’ use where an area is used for several different purposes at the same time. (b)
If so, the Court of Justice is further requested to state whether, where applicable, that means that safety areas surrounding runways and taxi and stop-ways at airports, which are part of the airport and are subject to special rules and restrictions, such those at issue, relating to the use of the land, but at the same time are also used to harvest grass for the production of feed pellets, are by their nature and use eligible for aid under the above provisions. | (a) | If so, the Court of Justice is requested to specify what parameters must be taken into account in deciding what purpose of use is the ‘primary’ use where an area is used for several different purposes at the same time. | (b) | If so, the Court of Justice is further requested to state whether, where applicable, that means that safety areas surrounding runways and taxi and stop-ways at airports, which are part of the airport and are subject to special rules and restrictions, such those at issue, relating to the use of the land, but at the same time are also used to harvest grass for the production of feed pellets, are by their nature and use eligible for aid under the above provisions. |
| --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (a) | If so, the Court of Justice is requested to specify what parameters must be taken into account in deciding what purpose of use is the ‘primary’ use where an area is used for several different purposes at the same time. | | | | |
| (b) | If so, the Court of Justice is further requested to state whether, where applicable, that means that safety areas surrounding runways and taxi and stop-ways at airports, which are part of the airport and are subject to special rules and restrictions, such those at issue, relating to the use of the land, but at the same time are also used to harvest grass for the production of feed pellets, are by their nature and use eligible for aid under the above provisions. | | | | |

| 2. | Must the requirement that the agricultural land form part of the farmer’s ‘holding’ within the meaning of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 1782/2003 and Article 34(2)(a) of Regulation No 73/2009 be interpreted as meaning that safety areas surrounding runways and taxi and stop-ways at airports, which are part of the airport and are subject to special rules and restrictions, such those at issue, relating to the use of the land, but at the same time are also used to harvest grass for the production of feed pellets, are eligible for aid under the above provisions? |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| 3. | If the answer to Question 1(b) and/or Question 2 is in the negative, will there then be, because the parcels of land in addition to being used to cultivate permanent pasture for the production of feed pellets are also safety areas surrounding runways and taxi and stop-ways,
(a)
an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 where payment entitlements for the areas are nevertheless allocated? (b)
an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 73(4) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004,( 3 ) where aid for the areas is nevertheless paid? (c)
an undue payment in relation to which the beneficiary cannot be regarded as having acted in good faith within the meaning of Article 73(5) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004, where aid for the areas is nevertheless paid? | (a) | an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 where payment entitlements for the areas are nevertheless allocated? | (b) | an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 73(4) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004,( 3 ) where aid for the areas is nevertheless paid? | (c) | an undue payment in relation to which the beneficiary cannot be regarded as having acted in good faith within the meaning of Article 73(5) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004, where aid for the areas is nevertheless paid? |
| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (a) | an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 where payment entitlements for the areas are nevertheless allocated? | | | | | | |
| (b) | an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 73(4) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004,( 3 ) where aid for the areas is nevertheless paid? | | | | | | |
| (c) | an undue payment in relation to which the beneficiary cannot be regarded as having acted in good faith within the meaning of Article 73(5) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004, where aid for the areas is nevertheless paid? | | | | | | |

| 4. | What time is material in assessing whether
(a)
there is an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009, (b)
there is an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 73(4) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004, (c)
the beneficiary can be regarded as having acted in good faith within the meaning of Article 73(5) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004? | (a) | there is an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009, | (b) | there is an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 73(4) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004, | (c) | the beneficiary can be regarded as having acted in good faith within the meaning of Article 73(5) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004? |
| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (a) | there is an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009, | | | | | | |
| (b) | there is an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer within the meaning of Article 73(4) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004, | | | | | | |
| (c) | the beneficiary can be regarded as having acted in good faith within the meaning of Article 73(5) of Commission implementing Regulation No 796/2004? | | | | | | |

| 5. | Must the assessment referred to in Question 4(a) to (c) be carried out in respect of each individual aid year or for the payments as a whole? |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---

( 1 )  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

( 2 )  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).

( 3 )  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).

---