Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2021:282
Date: 2021-04-15
Language of the case: Latvian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

summary, this court has doubts as to the scope to be given to the 
interpretation and application of the third subparagraph of Article 16(5) of 
Regulation No 65/2011 in a situation such as that in the present case, that is to say, 
whether it is justifiable to impose the penalty under the third subparagraph of 
Article 16(5) of Regulation No 65/2011 if the applicant has failed to comply with 
the requirements relating to mowing the area for which a maintenance of pasture 
biodiversity payment was claimed, but where no change in the crop group was 
PLAUKTI 
 
11 
found, whilst at the same time imposing the penalty under Article 18(1)(a) of 
Regulation No 65/2011. This court also has doubts whether the requirement in 
Article 18.2.1 of Decree No 139 is in line with Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation 
No 73/2009, in the light of the requirements of Article 39(3) of Regulation 
No 1698/2005, that is to say, whether the same requirement can simultaneously 
constitute a minimum requirement and impose requirements greater than the 
minimum requirements. 
It is therefore […] necessary to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling. On the basis of the foregoing, this court 
orders that the proceedings in the present case be stayed until the Court of Justice 
has ruled on those questions. 
Operative part 
In accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, […] this court 
hereby 
Refers the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
1. Does the third subparagraph of Article 16(5) of Commission Regulation 
(EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the 
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the 
implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of 
rural development support measures apply to a situation in which the applicant has 
failed to comply with the requirements relating to mowing the area for which the 
maintenance of pasture biodiversity payments were claimed (a requirement which 
goes beyond the mandatory minimum requirements under Article 39(3) of 
Regulation No 1698/2005) but where no change in the crop group has been 
found? 
2. Can both the penalty established in the third subparagraph of Article 16(5) 
of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 and the penalty 
laid down in Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation No 65/2011 be imposed 
simultaneously for a single infringement? 
3. Do Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 
2009, in conjunction with Article 39(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 
of 20 September 2005 preclude national legislation according to which the same 
requirement can simultaneously be a mandatory minimum requirement and 
impose requirements greater than the minimum mandatory requirements 
(requirement for an agri-environment payment)? 
Stays the proceedings until the Court of Justice of the European Union makes a 
ruling. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 9. 2019 — CASE C-736/19 
 
12  
[…]