Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2021:685
Date: 2021-09-02
Language of the case: Romanian
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Agricultural structures
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-176/20 — 1 
Case C-176/20 
Summary of a request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
7 April 2020 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
11 February 2020 
Appellant: 
SC Avio Lucos SRL 
Respondents 
Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul 
Județean Dolj 
Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat 
Central 
  
Subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings 
Appeal against the judgment of the Tribunalul Dolj (Regional Court, Dolj, 
Romania) dismissing the application by the appellant seeking annulment of the 
decision of the respondent, the Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură 
(Agency for payments and measures for agriculture; ‘APIA’ — Dolj District 
Centre) refusing the single payment application made by the appellant in respect 
of 2015 and an order requiring the respondent to adopt a decision approving that 
application 
Subject and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
An interpretation of Article 4(1)(a) and (c) and Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and of Article 60 of 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-176/20 
 
2  
Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council is 
requested pursuant to Article 267 TFEU. 
Questions referred 
(1) Does Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 establishing 
rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework 
of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) 
No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 preclude national 
legislation which establishes that the minimum activity to be carried out on 
agricultural areas normally kept in a state suitable for grazing is to consist in 
grazing with animals used by a farmer? 
(2) In so far as the abovementioned law [of the European Union] does not 
preclude the national legislation referred to in Question 1, may the respective 
provisions of Article 4(1)(a) and (c), and of Article 9(1), of Regulation (EU) 
No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 be interpreted as meaning that a legal person 
who has concluded a concession contract in circumstances such as those in the 
main proceedings and who keeps animals under loan-for-use contracts concluded 
with physical persons, by which the lenders entrust to the borrowers, free of 
charge, the animals which they keep as owners, for the purpose of use for grazing, 
on the pastureland made available to the borrowers and over the agreed periods of 
time, may be regarded as an ‘active farmer’? 
(3) Must Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013 on 
the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and 
repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) 
No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 be 
interpreted as meaning that artificial conditions also cover the case of a concession 
contract and loan-for-use contracts such as those at issue in the main proceedings? 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common 
agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) 
No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) 
No 485/2008, Article 60 
Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support 
schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing 
Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, 
Article 4(1)(a) and (c) and (2)(b), and Article 9  
SC AVIO LUCOS 
 
3 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului [OUG] nr. 3 din 18 martie 2015 pentru 
aprobarea schemelor de plăți care se aplică în agricultură în perioada 2015-2020 
și pentru modificarea articolului 2 din Legea nr. 36/1991 privind societățile 
agricole și alte forme de asociere în agricultură (Government Emergency Order 
No 3 of 18 March 2015 approving the payments schemes applicable in agriculture 
in the period 2015-2020 and amending Article 2 of Law No 36/1991 on 
agricultural companies and other forms of association in the field of agriculture) 
Article 2(1)(f) defines ‘farmer’ as ‘a natural or legal person or a form of 
association of natural or legal persons, regardless of their legal status, whose 
holding is situated in the territory of Romania and who exercises an agricultural 
activity’, whilst Article 2(d) defines ‘agricultural activity’ as ‘carrying out a 
minimum activity on agricultural areas normally kept in a state suitable for 
grazing or cultivation, by grazing, with a guarantee of a minimum grazing density 
of 0.3 LSU/hectare by the animals used by the farmer or annual mowing on 
permanent pasture, in accordance with the provisions of the specific legislation in 
the pasture sector’. 
Under Article 7(1), the beneficiaries of payments are to be active farmers, natural 
and/or legal persons who carry out an agricultural activity as users of areas of 
agricultural land and/or lawful keepers of animals, within the meaning of the 
legislation in force. 
Article 8(1) provides that, in order to benefit from direct payments, farmers must, 
inter alia, exploit agricultural land with an area of at least one hectare, the area of 
agricultural parcel must be at least 0.3 hectares, and in the case of greenhouses, 
solar greenhouses, vineyards, orchards, crops of hops, nurseries, and fruit bushes, 
the area of the agricultural parcel must be at least 0.1 hectare and/or, as the case 
may be, hold a minimum number of animals (subparagraph(c)) and present, when 
submitting a single payment application or amendments thereto, the necessary 
documents proving the use of the agricultural land, including land containing 
areas of ecological interest and animals [subparagraphs (n)]. 
Ordinul ministrului agriculturii și dezvoltării rurale nr. 619 din 6 aprilie 2015 
pentru aprobarea criteriilor de eligibilitate, [a] condițiilor specifice și a modului 
de implementare a schemelor de plăți prevăzute la articolul 1 alineatele (2) și (3) 
din [OUG nr. 3/2015], precum și a condițiilor specifice de implementare pentru 
măsurile compensatorii de dezvoltare rurală aplicabile pe terenurile agricole, 
prevăzute în Programul Național de Dezvoltare Rurală 2014-2020 (Order of the 
Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 619 of 6 April 2015 
approving the eligibility criteria, the specific conditions and the detailed rules 
governing implementation of the payments scheme laid down in Article 1(2) and 
(3) of [OUG No 3/2015], as well as the specific conditions governing the 
implementation of rural development countervailing measures applicable to 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-176/20 
 
4  
agricultural land, as laid down in the National Rural Development Programme 
2014-2020) 
Article 2(m) defines ‘animal keeper’ as a person who permanently possesses 
animals, as the owner of animals and/or owner of a holding, or temporarily 
possesses animals, as a person into whose custody they have been entrusted for 
the entire period of the year of application, kept pursuant to an act concluded 
under the conditions laid down by the legislation in force. 
Article 7(3)(a) provides that users of permanent pasture, natural or legal persons 
governed by private law, who carry out at least a minimum agricultural activity on 
the permanent pasture at their disposal under the law in force, as active farmers, 
are to present, when submitting a single payment application to the APIA, the 
documents provided for in Article 5(1) and (2)(a), (b)(i), (c) and (d), as well as, 
where applicable, a copy of the identification document of the farm holding to 
which the animals are registered or a certificate of an authorised veterinarian 
showing the code of the holding registered in the Registrul național al 
exploatațiilor (National register of holdings) valid on the date on which the single 
payment application is submitted, where the owner of the permanent pasture keeps 
animals by which he guarantees a minimum grazing density of 0.3 LSU/hectare. 
Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 34 din 23 aprilie 2013 privind 
organizarea, administrarea și exploatarea pajiștilor permanente și pentru 
modificarea și completarea Legii fondului funciar nr. 18/1991 (Government 
Emergency Order No 34 of 23 April 2013 on the organisation, management and 
exploitation of permanent pastures, amending and supplementing Law 
No 18/1991 on land ownership) 
Article 2(c) of that normative act defines ‘livestock unit (LSU)’ as a ‘standard unit 
of measurement established according to the feed requirements of each animal 
species, which enables the various categories of animals to be converted’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 The appellant SC Avio Lucos SRL is a Romanian legal person, established in the 
district of Dolj (Romania), whose corporate object consists of ‘activities in 
support of vegetable production’. 
2 By a payment application registered with the Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru 
Agricultură (Agency for payments and measures for agriculture; ‘APIA’ — 
Centrul Județean Dolj (Dolj District Centre)) on 1 July 2015, the appellant 
applied, pursuant to OUG No 3/2015, for a payment under the single area 
payment scheme (SAPS) in respect of an area of 170.36 hectares of pastureland 
(municipal permanent grassland used individually). 
3 The following were attached to the application: 
SC AVIO LUCOS 
 
5 
– concession contract No 472/28.01.2013, concluded between Consiliul Local 
al Comunei Podari (Municipal Council, Podari) and Avio Lucos SRL, concerning 
the concession of privately owned land of the Municipality of Podari, Dolj 
District, of an area of 341.70 hectares, subsequently amended in respect of an area 
of 170.36 hectares of pastureland; 
– the certificate issued by the Municipality of Podari attesting that the 
appellant is registered in the agricultural register with a used agricultural area of 
170.36 hectares; 
– the loan-for-use contracts concluded between the appellant and various 
animal owners; 
– the certificate issued by a veterinary practice showing the code of the 
appellant’s holding; 
– the movement form issued by the ANSVSA [Autoritatea Națională Sanitară 
Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor] (National Veterinary Health and Food 
Safety Authority) and the annex thereto, containing the holding identification data 
and the number of animals kept by the company (five animals); 
– the certificate issued by a veterinary practice showing that the natural 
persons mentioned therein are contractually bound to the appellant and appear in 
the National Database with a total number of 85 animals. 
4 In the single payment application the company stated that it was applying for 
support in respect of an agricultural area of 170.36 hectares and kept 24 bovine 
animals over two years of age, a bovine animal of under 6 months of age, 60 goats 
and 20 equidae (horses) of over 6 months of age, which contribute to the 
applicant’s agricultural activity. 
5 By decision of the APIA — Dolj District Centre of 20 October 2017 the 
appellant’s application was rejected on the ground that it had not guaranteed a 
minimum grazing density of 0.3 LSU/hectare in respect of the entire area of 
pastureland of 170.36 hectares. The appellant’s prior complaint against that 
decision was dismissed by the APIA — Dolj District Centre on 4 January 2018. 
By application at first instance registered at the Regional Court, Dolj, the 
appellant, in proceedings between it and the respondents APIA — Dolj District 
Centre and APIA — Aparat central (headquarters), sought annulment of the two 
decisions of APIA — Dolj District Centre, and an order requiring the latter to 
adopt a decision approving the single payment application. 
6 By judgment of 28 January 2018, the Regional Court, Dolj dismissed the 
application as unfounded, holding that the concession contract lodged was 
concluded in breach of certain legislative provisions and that the appellant had 
created artificial conditions in order to obtain the financial support. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-176/20 
 
6  
7 The appellant brought an appeal against that judgment before the Curtea de Apel 
Alba Iulia (Court of Appeal, Alba Iulia, Romania), the referring court. 
The main arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
8 In its appeal, the appellant stated that Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1307/2013 defines a farmer as a natural or legal person, or a group of natural 
or legal persons, regardless of the legal status granted to such group and its 
members by national law, whose holding is situated within the territorial scope of 
the Treaties and who exercises an agricultural activity. It considers that it can 
benefit from payments by proving its status as an active farmer and that it cannot 
be excluded from that benefit on the basis of its organisation as a commercial 
company which has concluded loan-for-use contracts with natural persons. 
9 The appellant also contends that it follows from Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1307/2013 that ‘holding’, with regard to the present case, covers agricultural 
land managed by a farmer and it is irrelevant whether or not the farmer has a right 
of ownership over the animals grazing on it or a right of ownership over the land. 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
10 The relevant provisions of national legislation provide that the beneficiaries of the 
single area payment schemes are to be active farmers, natural and/or legal persons 
who exercise an agricultural activity as users of areas of agricultural land and/or 
lawful keepers of animals, within the meaning of the legislation in force. 
11 The referring court also considers that Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013 
allows the Member States to define the minimum activity to be carried out on 
agricultural areas naturally kept in a state suitable for grazing or cultivation and 
national legislation established that agricultural activity may also mean the 
carrying out of a minimum activity on agricultural areas normally kept in a state 
suitable for grazing or cultivation, by grazing, with a guarantee of a minimum 
grazing density of 0.3 LSU/hectare by the animals used by the farmer. 
12 The Court of Appeal asks whether Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 precludes 
national legislation which establishes that the minimum activity to be carried out 
on agricultural areas normally kept in a state suitable for grazing is to consist in 
grazing by animals used by a farmer and, if not, whether Article 4(1)(a) and (c) 
and Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 may be interpreted as meaning 
that a legal person who has concluded a concession contract in circumstances such 
as those in the main proceedings and who keeps animals under loan-for-use 
contracts concluded with physical persons, by which the lenders entrust to the 
borrowers, free of charge, the animals which they keep as owners, for the purpose 
of use for grazing, on the pastureland made available to the borrowers and over 
the agreed periods of time, may be regarded as an ‘active farmer’. 
SC AVIO LUCOS 
 
7 
13 At the same time the Court of Appeal considers it necessary to clarify whether 
Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 may be interpreted as meaning that 
artificial conditions also cover the case of a concession contract and loan-for-use 
contracts such as those at issue in the main proceedings. 
14 The referring court, which is called up to resolve the dispute at last instance, 
considers that the answer to the questions referred cannot be clearly deduced from 
the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and, furthermore, is 
not beyond reasonable doubt.