# C_2020262EN.01001802.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 4 June 2020 — SIA ‘Sātiņi-S’ v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-234/20)

(2020/C 262/24)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Sātiņi-S’

Defendant: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 30(6)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) be interpreted as meaning that peat bogs are completely excluded from Natura 2000 payments? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 30(6)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) be interpreted as meaning that peat bogs are completely excluded from Natura 2000 payments?

| 2. | If the reply to the first question is in the negative, are peat bogs included in agricultural or forest areas? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the reply to the first question is in the negative, are peat bogs included in agricultural or forest areas?

| 3. | If the reply to the first question is in the negative, must Article 30 of Regulation No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may completely exclude peat bogs from Natura 2000 payments and that such national provisions are compatible with the compensatory aim of those payments established in Regulation No 1305/2013? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the reply to the first question is in the negative, must Article 30 of Regulation No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may completely exclude peat bogs from Natura 2000 payments and that such national provisions are compatible with the compensatory aim of those payments established in Regulation No 1305/2013?

| 4. | Must Article 30 of Regulation No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may restrict support payments for Natura 2000 areas by making support available only in connection with restrictions on a particular type of economic activity, for example, by limiting support in forest areas to forestry activities? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 30 of Regulation No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may restrict support payments for Natura 2000 areas by making support available only in connection with restrictions on a particular type of economic activity, for example, by limiting support in forest areas to forestry activities?

| 5. | Must Article 30(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013, read together with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that someone is entitled to a Natura 2000 payment by virtue of his plans for a new economic activity if, when he acquired the property, he was already aware of the restrictions that applied to it? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Must Article 30(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013, read together with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that someone is entitled to a Natura 2000 payment by virtue of his plans for a new economic activity if, when he acquired the property, he was already aware of the restrictions that applied to it?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487.

---