Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:56
Date: 2022-01-27
Language of the case: Latvian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

Translation C-234/20 — 1 
Case C-234/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
4 June 2020 
Referring court: 
Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Supreme Court, Latvia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
3 June 2020  
Appellant: 
SIA Sātiņi-S  
Other party to the appeal proceedings: 
Lauku atbalsta dienests (Rural Support Service) 
  
[…] 
Administratīvo lietu departaments (Administrative Chamber) 
Latvijas Republikas Senāts (Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia) 
DECISION 
[…] 3 June 2020  
[…] [composition of the court] 
on the basis of written submissions, [this court] examined the appeal lodged by 
SIA Sātiņi-S against the judgment of the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional 
Administrative Court) of 26 March 2018 in administrative law proceedings 
originating in an action brought by the aforesaid undertaking seeking an award of 
compensation from the Lauku atbalsta dienests (Rural Support Service) for the 
prohibition on establishing plantations of berries of the Vaccinium genus in peat 
bogs situated in nature protection areas. 
Subject matter of the main proceedings and relevant facts 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 3.6.2020 — CASE C-234/20 
 
2  
1. In 2002 the [now] appellant [(‘the appellant’] acquired the ‘Liegumi’ 
[(‘Reserves’)] and ‘Centri’ [(‘Centres’)] lands. These include 7.7 hectares of peat 
bog. They are located in a nature protection area and in a Natura 2000 area of 
European importance for conservation (‘Natura 2000 area’).  
Under point 16.12. of the Ministru kabineta 2010. gada 16. marta noteikumi Nr. 
264 “Īpaši aizsargājamo dabas teritoriju vispārējie aizsardzības un izmantošanas 
noteikumi” (Decree No 264 of the Council of Ministers of 16 March 2010 on 
general provisions governing the protection and use of special areas of 
conservation; ‘Decree No 264’), it is forbidden to establish Vaccinium berry 
plantations in peat bogs situated in nature protection areas. 
On 2 February 2017 the appellant submitted a claim to the Rural Support Service 
for compensation for the restrictions on economic activity during 2015 and 2016 
in the peat bog it owned within a Natura 2000 area. 
By a decision of 28 February 2017, the Rural Support Service refused the 
appellant’s claim for compensation for restrictions on economic activity. 
According to the service, the regulations do not provide for compensation for a 
prohibition on establishing Vaccinium berry plantations in peat bogs, and 
therefore there is no legal basis for awarding the appellant the compensation it 
sought.  
2. The appellant brought legal proceedings in its attempt to obtain 
compensation for restrictions on economic activity. After examining the case on 
appeal, the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the claim. The judgment of 
that court in the appeal is based — as was the judgment at first instance — on the 
considerations set out below. 
2.1 Article 2(2) of the Likums ‘Par kompensāciju par saimnieciskās darbības 
ierobežojumiem aizsargājamās teritorijās’ (Law on compensation for restrictions 
on economic activities in protected areas) establishes that an annual grant will be 
paid to compensate for restrictions placed on economic activities in Natura 2000 
areas of European importance for conservation; payments will be made from the 
relevant EU funds, in accordance with the procedures laid down in the rules on 
support for rural development. 
2.2 State aid for the development of the agricultural and forestry sector is granted 
in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Ministru kabineta 2015. gada 
7. aprīļa noteikumi Nr. 171 ‘Noteikumi par valsts un Eiropas Savienības atbalsta 
piešķiršanu, administrēšanu un uzraudzību vides, klimata un lauku ainavas 
uzlabošanai 2014.–2020. gada plānošanas periodā’ (Decree No 171 of the Council 
of Ministers of 7 April 2015 relating to the grant, administration and supervision 
of State and European Union aid for improvements to the environment, climate 
and rural areas during the programming period for the years 2014 to 2020’; 
‘Decree No 171’). With regard to the grant of support in the form of 
‘Compensation payments for Natura 2000 forest areas’, Point 56 of Decree 
SĀTIŅI-S 
 
3 
No 171 establishes that the land eligible for support under this measure must be 
forest land (excluding peat bogs). Decree No 171 therefore makes provision for 
compensation payments for Natura 2000 areas, but does not provide for 
compensation for restrictions on economic activity in peat bogs. 
2.3 Article 6(1) 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 (‘Regulation No 1305/2013’) establishes 
that the EAFRD will act in the Member States through rural development 
programmes. Under Article 10 of the regulation, Member States are to submit to 
the Commission a proposal for each rural development programme, containing the 
information referred to in Article 8, and each rural development programme is to 
be approved by the Commission by means of an implementing act. The rural 
development programme for Latvia for the period from 2014 to 2020 states that 
support may be paid where restrictions are placed on forestry activities in Natura 
2000 areas or in microreserves located on forest land (excluding peat bogs). 
Thus, for the 2014-2020 EU funds programming period, the Commission 
approved a rural development programme for Latvia that included support 
payments in respect of certain restrictions on economic activity on forest land, but 
not for peat bogs. The programme makes no provision for support in respect of 
restrictions on agricultural activity in peat bogs located in Natura 2000 areas. 
2.4 Moreover, when the appellant acquired the lands, there were statutory 
restrictions in place on establishing Vaccinium plantations in peat bogs. When the 
appellant acquired the lands, it knew they were in a nature protection area and it 
was therefore aware of the restrictions that applied to that area. 
3. The appellant has lodged an appeal in which it argues that, under 
Article 30(6)(a) of Regulation No 1305/2013, forest areas designated pursuant to 
Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC are eligible for payments for Natura 2000 
areas. The regulation does not exclude peat bogs. 
4. In view of the above, these proceedings concern a dispute over whether the 
appellant is eligible for payments in respect of the restrictions placed on economic 
activity in peat bogs located in Natura 2000 areas. 
Relevant national and EU legislation 
5. EU legislation 
5.1 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.  
Recital 24: [‘]Support should continue to be granted to farmers and forest holders 
to help address specific disadvantages in the areas concerned resulting from the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 3.6.2020 — CASE C-234/20 
 
4  
implementation of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council and Council Directive 92/43/EEC and in order to contribute to the 
effective management of Natura 2000 sites. …[’] 
Article 30[,] Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments[:] 
[‘]1. Support under this measure shall be granted annually per hectare of 
agricultural area or per hectare of forest in order to compensate beneficiaries for 
additional costs and income foregone resulting from disadvantages in the areas 
concerned, related to the implementation of Directives 92/43/EEC and Directive 
2009/147/EC and the Water Framework Directive. 
[…] 
6. The following areas shall be eligible for payments: 
(a) Natura 2000 agricultural and forest areas designated pursuant to Directives 
92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC; 
[…][’] 
5.2 Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation 
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 
5.3 Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[:] 
[‘]Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully 
acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in 
the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, 
subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of 
property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general 
interest.[’] 
6. National legislation: 
6.1 Decree No 264 of the Council of Ministers of 16 March 2010 on general 
provisions governing the protection and use of special areas of conservation[:] 
[‘]16. In nature protection areas it is forbidden: 
[…] 
16.12. to establish Vaccinium berry plantations in peat bogs; 
[…][’] 
6.2 Decree No 171 of the Council of Ministers of 7 April 2015 relating to the 
grant, administration and supervision of State and European Union aid for 
SĀTIŅI-S 
 
5 
improvements to the environment, climate and rural areas during the 
programming period for the years 2014 to 2020. 
Point 56: [‘]The area eligible for support under this measure is forest land 
(excluding peat bogs): 
56.1. which is included in the list of areas of European importance for 
conservation (“Natura 2000 areas”) pursuant to Article 6(a) of 
Regulation No 1305/2013 and determined in accordance with the 
likums “Par īpaši aizsargājamām dabas teritorijām” (Law on special 
areas of conservation); 
[…]’ 
Point 58: [‘]Support may be granted if the eligible area declared for the 
support is at least 1 hectare and comprises fields of at least 0.1 hectares, and 
the minimum area subject to some form of restriction within a field 
measures at least 0.1 hectares, and if the said fields can be identified on a 
map, are included in the Rural Support Service’s electronic application 
system and are subject to any of the following restrictions on economic 
activity from 1 March of the current year under the legislation governing the 
protection and use of special areas of conservation or the protection of 
species and biotopes: 
58.1 prohibition on forestry activities; 
58.2 prohibition on main harvesting and thinning; 
58. 3 prohibition on main harvesting; 
58.4 prohibition on clear cutting.[’] 
Reasons why the referring court has doubts as to the interpretation of 
EU law 
7. It can be seen from recital 24 and Article 30(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013 
that the purpose of the payments for Natura 2000 areas is to help to address 
specific disadvantages and to compensate for additional costs and income 
foregone resulting from disadvantages in the areas concerned, related to the 
implementation of Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC and the Water 
Framework Directive. 
While, in the first instance, it is for Member States, when designing their rural 
development programmes, to decide how the measures intended to achieve the 
objectives set by Regulation No 1305/2013 should apply in practice, restrictions 
adopted by Member States must not eliminate the compensatory aim of the Natura 
2000 payments system (see the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union of 30 March 2017, Lingurár, C-315/16, EU:C:2017:244). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 3.6.2020 — CASE C-234/20 
 
6  
Moreover, payments for Natura 2000 areas must be considered in conjunction 
with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 
since the right to property includes the right of use and the right to fair 
compensation. 
8. Peat bogs account for approximately 4% of Latvian territory (according to 
some sources, the percentage is as much as 10%). Cultivation of the Vaccinium 
genus in peat bogs is a form of fruit farming. 
As noted in a publicly available study: ‘At present, the cultivation of berries on an 
industrial scale provides one of the means to continue economic activity in peat 
bogs where mineral extraction has ended, and it produces goods ― whether 
berries or processed berry products ― that can be exported. According to statistics 
published by the Rural Support Service, in 2016 applications for single area 
payments were made in respect of 142 hectares of cranberry cultivation and 250 
hectares of blueberry (bilberry) cultivation, but there were no applications for 
areas given over to lingonberries or cloudberries. It is well known that fields given 
over to berries of the Vaccinium genus occupy a much larger area but, whether 
because of the land use or for other reasons, no applications were made for 
support, and therefore no statistics are available.’ (Available at: 
http://www.silava.lv/userfiles/file/Projektu%20parskati/2016_Lazdina_LVM_kud
ra.pdf, p. 15). 
In view of the fact that a large part of the Natura 2000 areas in Latvia are also 
covered by peat bogs (annex to the Law on special areas of conservation), the 
Supreme Court wonders whether the total exclusion of these areas from the Natura 
2000 areas compensation payments scheme is contrary to the aim of the 
compensation payments.  
The areas 
9. Article 30(6)(a) of Regulation No 1305/2013 establishes that Natura 2000 
agricultural and forest areas designated pursuant to Directives 92/43/EEC and 
2009/147/EC are eligible for payments. 
Annex I to Directive 92/43/EEC, which sets out the habitat types of Community 
interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of 
conservation, also includes peat bogs and, in particular, bog woodlands. 
The prohibition in Point 16.2 of Decree No 264 on establishing Vaccinium 
plantations in peat bogs undoubtedly restricts the owner’s right to use its property 
freely and to obtain an income from the economic activity that has been restricted. 
The section of Decree No 171 dealing with ‘Natura 2000 and Water Framework 
Directive payments’ includes a subsidiary measure entitled ‘Compensation 
payments for Natura 2000 forest areas’. Under Point 56 of Decree No 171, in 
order to be eligible for support under this measure an area must be a forest area 
(other than a peat bog). The State has therefore restricted the grant of 
SĀTIŅI-S 
 
7 
compensation available to Natura 2000 areas, firstly by stipulating that payments 
are available only for forest areas and, secondly, by excluding peat bogs located 
within forest areas. As a result, Decree No 171 does not provide any 
compensation for restrictions on economic activity in peat bogs located within 
Natura 2000 areas. 
Types of economic activity  
10. It is also clear from Article 30(6)(a) of Regulation No 1305/2013 that, under 
[the system of] Natura 2000 payments, compensation payments are limited to 
certain areas, namely agricultural or forest areas. However, it is not clear from this 
provision that compensation payments are limited to certain types of economic 
activity, that is, to agricultural or forestry activities. 
Point 58 of Decree No 171 stipulates that the support is available only in 
connection with restrictions on forestry activities. However, it is also possible to 
carry on agricultural activities in peat bogs located within forest lands, by 
establishing Vaccinium plantations. 
11. Under the national legislation, owners of peat bogs in a Natura 2000 area are 
in practice completely excluded from the Natura 2000 payment system and do not 
receive any compensation for the restrictions imposed in these areas. 
In view of this fact, and given that it is not clear from the provisions in Regulation 
No 1305/2013 to which restrictions the discretion available to Member States as 
regards the imposition of restrictions on Natura 2000 payments applies, the 
Supreme Court has doubts whether a Member State has the right: 1) to pass 
legislation which completely excludes peat bogs located in Natura 2000 areas 
from Natura 2000 support payments; and 2) to restrict the receipt of support, by 
stipulating that, in a particular area, support may be granted only in connection 
with restrictions on a particular type of economic activity. 
12. In the present case, the appellant was aware when it acquired ownership of 
the assets that they included a nature [protection] area. Moreover, when the 
applicant acquired ownership of the assets, there were already restrictions on the 
economic activity of establishing Vaccinium plantations in peat bogs. 
Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that 
no one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and 
in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair 
compensation being paid in good time for their loss. 
While the right to property includes the right to use those possessions, including 
the pursuit of the maximum possible financial return, when the owner acquires the 
property he must take into account the various restrictions that apply to it, and he 
must be aware that he cannot decide at any point to use the property in whatever 
way he wishes. Where a purchaser acquires property that is subject to restrictions, 
he is able to plan in advance what he intends to use the purchase for. Therefore, in 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 3.6.2020 — CASE C-234/20 
 
8  
the view of the Supreme Court, when the appellant purchased the property it 
should have taken into account the restriction on establishing Vaccinium 
plantations in peat bogs. In consequence, the appellant is not entitled subsequently 
to rely on its intention to obtain income from establishing Vaccinium plantations 
in the peat bogs on its land in order to claim compensation for foregoing that 
income. 
Article 30(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013 stipulates that the support is to be 
granted in order to compensate for foregone income. If it transpires that the 
regulation also applies to peat bogs, the Supreme Court has doubts whether, in a 
case such as the present one, the interested party can be considered to have 
foregone income. In other words, whether someone is entitled to a Natura 2000 
payment if, when he acquired the property, he was aware of the restrictions that 
applied to it and of their restrictive effect on potential economic activity. 
13. Having regard to the considerations set out above, in the view of the 
Supreme Court the matter needs to be referred to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union in order to clarify the correct interpretation of the provisions in 
Regulation No 1305/2013. 
Operative part 
Pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 
the Supreme Court: 
orders 
That the following questions be referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union: 
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 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? 
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 
SĀTIŅI-S 
 
9 
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? 
That proceedings be stayed until the Court of Justice of the European Union gives 
judgment.  
[…]