46

Since it considers that the outcome of the main proceedings turns on an interpretation of EU law, the Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court of Appeal) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. (a) Must the requirement that an agricultural area not be used for “non-agricultural activities” within the meaning of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 1782/2003 and the requirement that an agricultural area be used for “an agricultural activity or … predominantly used for agricultural activities” within the meaning of Article 34(2)(a) of Regulation No 73/2009 be interpreted as meaning that it is a condition for aid that the primary purpose of an area’s use be agricultural? (b) If so, the Court is requested to specify what parameters must be taken into account in deciding what purpose of use is the “primary” use where an area is used for several different purposes at the same time? (c) If so, the Court is further requested to state whether, where applicable, that means that safety areas surrounding runways, taxiways and stopways at airfields, which are part of the airfield and are subject to special rules and restrictions, such as those at issue, relating to the use of the land, but at the same time are also used to harvest grass for the production of feed pellets, are by their nature and use eligible for aid under the above provisions? 2. Must the requirement that the agricultural land form part of the farmer’s “holding” within the meaning of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 1782/2003 and Article 34(2)(a) of Regulation No 73/2009 be interpreted as meaning that safety areas surrounding runways, taxiways and stopways at airports, which are part of the airfield and are subject to special rules and restrictions, such as those at issue, relating to the use of the land, but at the same time are also used to harvest grass for the production of feed pellets, are eligible for aid under the above provisions? 3. If the answer to Question 1(c) and/or Question 2 is in the negative, will there then be, because the parcels of land in addition to being used to cultivate permanent pasture for the production of feed pellets are also safety areas surrounding runways, taxiways and stopways: (a) an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer for the purposes of Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 where payment entitlements for the areas are nevertheless allocated; (b) an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer for the purposes of Article 73(4) of [Regulation No 796/2004], where aid for the areas is nevertheless paid; (c) an undue payment in relation to which the beneficiary cannot be regarded as having acted in good faith for the purposes of Article 73(5) of [Regulation No 796/2004], where aid for the areas is nevertheless paid? 4. What time is material in assessing whether: (a) there is an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer for the purposes of Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009; (b) there is an error which could reasonably have been detected by the farmer for the purposes of Article 73(4) of [Regulation No 796/2004]; (c) the beneficiary can be regarded as having acted in good faith for the purposes of Article 73(5) of [Regulation No 796/2004]? 5. Must the assessment referred to in Question 4(a) to (c) be carried out in respect of each individual aid year or for the payments as a whole?’