Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2021:817
Date: 2021-10-06
Language of the case: Latvian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

Translation C-119/20 — 1 
Case C-119/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
28 February 2020  
Referring court: 
Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Supreme Court, Latvia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
24 February 2020 
Applicant at first instance and appellant in cassation: 
Līga Šenfelde 
Other party to the proceedings: 
Lauku atbalsta dienests (Rural environment support service, Latvia) 
      
[…] 
Chamber for administrative-law proceedings 
Latvijas Republikas Senāts (Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia) 
ORDER 
In Riga, on 24 February 2020 
[…] [composition of the court] 
examined in written proceedings the appeal in cassation brought by Līga Šenfelde 
(whose name, at the appellant’s request, has not been anonymised but is 
reproduced in full) against the judgment of the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa 
(Regional Administrative Court, Latvia) of 29 September 2017 in the 
administrative-law proceedings initiated by the application brought by Līga 
Šenfelde with a view to obtaining an order requiring the Lauku atbalsta dienests 
(Rural environment support service, Latvia) to issue an administrative instrument 
granting her application for approval of the project […] entitled ‘ZS “Purenes” 
pārņemšana un attīstība’ (‘purchase and development of the “Purenes” agricultural 
holding’). 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24.2.2020 — CASE C-119/20 
 
2  
Subject matter and relevant facts of the dispute in the main proceedings 
[1] On 5 October 2015, the applicant [at first instance and now appellant in 
cassation; ‘the appellant’] made an application for approval of a project under sub-
measure 6.3 of the farm and business development measures ([under the heading] 
‘Support for business start-ups through the development of small agricultural 
holdings’; ‘business start-up aid’). On 15 January 2016, the Lauku atbalsta 
dienests approved that project. 
On 27 July 2016, the appellant purchased the ‘Purenes’ agricultural holding. 
On 23 August 2016, the appellant made an application for approval of the project 
[…] entitled ‘purchase and development of the “Purenes” agricultural holding’, 
under sub-measure 6.1 (‘Business start-up aid for young farmers’; ‘young farmer 
start-up aid’). During that period, the appellant also continued to pursue the 
activities provided for under sub-measure 6.3. 
By decision of 6 January 2017, the Lauku atbalsta dienests refused to grant the 
young farmer start-up aid on the ground that, on 15 January 2016, it had approved 
the project in respect of which the appellant had received business start-up aid. 
According to the Lauku atbalsta dienests, 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’) provides that holdings in receipt of support fall into different 
categories and there must therefore be no overlap of support measures. In its 
opinion, that conclusion also follows from point 1 of the Ministru kabineta 
2015.gada 9.jūnija noteikumi Nr. 292 ‘Valsts un Eiropas Savienības atbalsta 
piešķiršanas kārtība pasākuma “Lauku saimniecību un uzņēmējdarbības attīstība” 
apakšpasākumā “Atbalsts uzņēmējdarbības uzsākšanai, attīstot mazās lauku 
saimniecības”’ (Decree No 292 of the Council of Ministers of 9 June 2015 on 
provisions relating to the procedure for granting national and EU support under 
the sub-measure entitled ‘Support for business start-ups through the development 
of small agricultural holdings’, which forms part of the measure entitled ‘Farm 
and business development’) (‘Decree No 292’), and point 1 of the Ministru 
kabineta 2015.gada 16.jūnija noteikumi Nr. 323 ‘Valsts un Eiropas Savienības 
atbalsta piešķiršanas kārtība pasākuma “Lauku saimniecību un uzņēmējdarbības 
attīstība” apakšpasākumam “Atbalsts jaunajiem lauksaimniekiem 
uzņēmējdarbības uzsākšanai”’ (Decree No 323 of the Council of Ministers of 
16 June 2015 on provisions relating to the procedure for granting national and EU 
support under the sub-measure entitled ‘Business start-up aid for young farmers’, 
which forms part of the measure entitled ‘Farm and business development’) 
(‘Decree No 323’), which provide for a single payment by way of young farmer 
start-up aid and by way of business start-up aid. The Lauku atbalsta dienests is of 
the opinion that, within the context of a [single] measure, an applicant may 
receive either business start-up aid or young farmer start-up aid. 
LAUKU ATBALSTA DIENESTS 
 
3 
The Lauku atbalsta dienests states that, in accordance with the rural development 
programme agreed with the European Commission, a Member State has the power 
to refuse to cumulate awards in favour of a farmer where the cumulation sequence 
laid down in the [Latvian] rural development programme has not been complied 
with. It follows from the findings of the Lauku atbalsta dienests that a person may 
not apply first for business start-up aid and then for young farmer start-up aid, 
since this would not meet the first business or first farm purchase requirement. 
[2] Disagreeing with that decision, the appellant referred the matter to the 
courts. The Administratīvā rajona tiesa (District Administrative Court, Latvia) and 
the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court, Latvia) 
dismissed her claims. 
The courts concurred with the opinion of the Lauku atbalsta dienests and also 
concluded that it followed from the objectives set out in the aforementioned 
projects that the second was a continuation of attaining the objective initiated by 
the first. The young farmer start-up aid could not therefore be regarded as being 
used for its proper purpose of supporting young people setting up an agricultural 
holding for the first time. Granting the young farmer start-up aid would infringe 
the single payment rule. A joint interpretation of the provisions of Decree No 292, 
Decree No 323 and Regulation No 1305/2013 does not show that it was the 
legislature’s aim that aid should be awarded twice to a single applicant. In 
accordance with point 22 of Decree No 323, the Lauku atbalsta dienests Lauku 
atbalsta dienests is to evaluate the quality of the business plan, the consistency of 
the investment with the objectives pursued and the proportionality of the 
objectives in relation to the total amount of the aid, and is to verify that aid is 
granted in the most effective manner. Granting aid twice in support of a single 
objective could not be regarded as a proportionate use of funds in relation to other 
applicants. Decree No 323 provides that, in order to receive young farmer start-up 
aid, the applicant must be setting up (or purchasing or inheriting) an agricultural 
holding for the first time as head of that holding. In accordance with the 
provisions of Decree No 292, on the other hand, business start-up aid is granted 
for the development of existing farms. In addition, point 1 of both decrees 
provides that the form of aid in question is to be granted in a single payment. This 
means that aid can be granted only once in the course of an economic activity, 
since the forms of aid available are designed as single incentives to promote the 
development of small holdings.  
[3] The appellant has brought an appeal in cassation on the ground that the 
courts misinterpreted, inter alia, the provisions of Regulation No 1305/2013. In 
her view, receipt of the aid available under each of the sub-measures is governed 
by different legal rules and the limitation to the effect that aid may not be received 
more than once applies only to each specific sub-measure. According to the 
appellant, beneficiaries of business start-up aid may apply for young farmer start-
up aid, since it is logically consistent with the objectives of business development 
that a smaller business may grow into a larger one.  
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24.2.2020 — CASE C-119/20 
 
4  
[4] Consequently, the present case is concerned with whether the appellant 
qualifies for only one form of aid or for both. 
Relevant national and EU legislation 
[5] EU legislation: 
[5.1] Article 19 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. Support under this measure shall cover: 
(a) business start-up aid for:  
(i) young farmers; 
[…] 
(iii) the development of small farms; 
[…] 
2. Support under point (a)(i) of paragraph 1 shall be granted to young farmers. 
[…] 
Support under point (a)(iii) of paragraph 1 shall be granted to small farms as 
defined by Member States. 
4. […] 
For young farmers receiving support under point a(i) of paragraph 1, the business 
plan shall provide that the young farmer complies with Article 9 of Regulation 
(EU) No 1307/2013, regarding active farmers within 18 months from the date of 
setting up. 
Member States shall define upper and lower thresholds for allowing agricultural 
holdings access to support under points (a)(i) and (a)(iii) of paragraph 1. The 
lower threshold for support under point (a)(i) of paragraph 1 shall be higher than 
the upper threshold for support under point (a)(iii) of paragraph 1. Support shall 
be limited to holdings coming under the definition of micro and small enterprises. 
[…][’] 
[5.2] Point [(35)29] [of section 2.4 (‘definitions’)] of the European Union 
Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas 
2014 to 2020 provides that ‘young farmer’ means a person who is no more than 
LAUKU ATBALSTA DIENESTS 
 
5 
40 years of age on the date of submitting the aid application, possesses adequate 
occupational skills and competences and is setting up for the first time in an 
agricultural holding as head of that holding.  
[6] National legislation: 
[6.1] Decree No 292 of the Council of Ministers of 9 June 2015 on provisions 
relating to the procedure for granting national and European Union support under 
the sub-measure entitled ‘Business start-up support through the development of 
small agricultural holdings’, which forms part of the measure entitled ‘Farm and 
business development’. 
Point 1: [‘]These provisions lay down the procedure for granting national and 
European Union support under the sub-measure entitled ‘Business start-up support 
through the development of small agricultural holdings’, which forms part of the 
measure entitled ‘Farm and business development’, in the form of a single 
payment[’]. 
Point 20: [‘]Within a programming period, an applicant may receive the support 
referred to in these provisions only once[’]. 
[6.2] Decree No 323 of the Council of Ministers of 16 June 2015 on provisions 
relating to the procedure for granting national and European Union support for the 
sub-measure entitled ‘Business start-up aid for young farmers’, which forms part 
of the measure entitled ‘Farm and business development’. 
Point 1: [‘]These provisions lay down the procedure for granting national and 
European Union support under the sub-heading entitled ‘Business start-up aid for 
young farmers’, which forms part of the measure entitled ‘Farm and business 
development’, in the form of a single payment[’]. 
Reasons why the referring court has doubts about the interpretation of 
European Union law 
[7] From the explanations provided by the Lauku atbalsta dienests, which were 
also endorsed by the lower-instance courts, it follows that a farmer loses ‘young 
farmer’ status solely by virtue of having received small farm development aid, as 
provided for in Article 19(1)(a)(iii) of the Regulation, two years previously. 
The Senāts (Supreme Court, Latvia) is uncertain whether that fact alone warrants 
the loss of the aforementioned status. 
[8] Article 11 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 808/2014 of 
17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 
No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural 
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFR) 
(‘Regulation No 808/2014’) provides for the possibility of combining measures, 
but it does not expressly provide for the possibility of combining the measures 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24.2.2020 — CASE C-119/20 
 
6  
referred to in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013, nor does it provide the 
Member State with a discretionary power to impose any appropriate restrictions 
on the receipt of aid in relation to a single measure. 
In its observations on the appeal in cassation, the Lauku atbalsta dienests submits 
that, in accordance with the obligation laid down in Article 10 of Regulation 
No 1305/2013, Latvia has agreed with the European Commission a programming 
document (the Latvian Rural Development Programme) for the years 2014 to 
2020 (available on the Ministry of Agriculture’s website at: 
https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/latvijas-lauku-
attistibas-programma-2014-2020-gadam?id= 6426#jump). In its view, the content 
of that document supports the conclusion that Latvia did not choose to allow sub-
measures 6.1 and 6.3 to be cumulated. The Lauku atbalsta dienests draws attention 
to points 8.2.5.3.1.11 (condition governing the cumulation referred to on page 276 
of the document in question) and 8.2.5.3.2.11 (condition governing the cumulation 
referred to on page 283 of the document in question) of the aforementioned 
programme. The drafting of the Programme for 2014 to 2020 was informed by the 
principle that only the activities specified in that document are permissible; those 
not specified there are not permitted.  
In the view of the Senāts (Supreme Court), it is not clear whether the European 
Union legislation authorises a Member State to enact rules to the effect that a 
farmer is not to be paid the aid provided for in Article 19(1)(a)(i) of the 
Regulation if he or she has already been granted the aid provided for in 
Article 19(1)(a)(iii). There is therefore some uncertainty as to the correct 
interpretation of the relevant European Union rules.  
[9] The Senāts (Supreme Court) further states that it follows from the 
observations of the Lauku atbalsta dienests that the fact that, at the time when the 
application was made, the total amount of the aid requested and the aid previously 
received was in excess of the upper threshold (EUR 40 000) cannot in itself justify 
the refusal to award the aid. If Member States cannot prohibit the cumulative 
receipt of aid, then, account being taken of the principle of sound administration, 
the Lauku atbalsta dienests, after receiving the appellant’s application for the 
second aid award and after concluding that the amount requested, taken in 
conjunction with that of the aid already granted, was in excess of the threshold, 
could have told the appellant that the amount requested needed to be corrected and 
reduced by at least EUR 15 000, since it exceeded the upper threshold. 
[10] In order to clarify the interpretation to be given to the provisions of 
Regulation No 1305/2013 and its Implementing Regulation No 808/2014, the 
Senāts (Supreme Court) considers it necessary to refer the matter to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union. 
Operative part 
LAUKU ATBALSTA DIENESTS 
 
7 
In accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, […] [reference to national procedural provisions], the Senāts (Supreme 
Court) 
makes the following order 
The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling: 
Must Article 19(1)(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, in conjunction 
with other provisions of the aforementioned regulation and the European Union 
Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas 
2014 to 2020, be interpreted as meaning that: 
1) a farmer loses his or her ‘young farmer’ status solely by virtue of 
having received small farm development aid, as provided for in 
Article 19(1)(a)(iii) of the Regulation, two years previously;  
2) those provisions authorise Member States to enact legislation to the 
effect that a farmer is not to be paid the aid provided for in 
Article 19(1)(a)(i) of the Regulation if he or she has already been 
granted the aid provided for in Article 19(1)(a)(iii); 
3) a Member State is has the power to refuse to cumulate aid for a farmer 
in the case where the cumulation sequence laid down in the rural 
development programme agreed with the European Commission has 
not been complied with? 
The proceedings are stayed pending a ruling from the Court of Justice of the 
European Union. 
This order is non-appealable. 
[…] [signatures and formalities]