Case C-176/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — SC Avio Lucos SRL v Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul judeţean Dolj, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Common rules — Single area payment scheme — Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Article 4(1)(a) and (c) and Article 4(2)(b) — National legislation making direct support conditional on the farmer keeping his own animals — Article 9(1) — Concept of ‘active farmer’ — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 60 — Circumvention clause — Concept of ‘artificially created conditions’)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU direct payments, aid to agriculture, farmer, grassland, livestock farming, ownership, single payment scheme, tenant farming, utilised agricultural area








C_2022213EN.01000502.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/5






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — SC Avio Lucos SRL v Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul judeţean Dolj, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central
(Case C-176/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Direct support schemes - Common rules - Single area payment scheme - Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Article 4(1)(a) and (c) and Article 4(2)(b) - National legislation making direct support conditional on the farmer keeping his own animals - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘active farmer’ - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 60 - Circumvention clause - Concept of ‘artificially created conditions’)
(2022/C 213/05)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC Avio Lucos SRL

Defendants: Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul judeţean Dolj, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 4(1)(c)(iii) and Article 4(2)(b) of 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 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that the minimum activity on agricultural areas naturally kept in a state suitable for grazing or cultivation, referred to in those provisions, must be carried out by the farmer with animals kept by the farmer himself.










2.


Article 4(1)(a) and (c) and Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1307/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘active farmer’, within the meaning of that second provision, covers a legal person who has concluded a concession contract relating to an area of pastureland belonging to a municipality and who grazes on that land animals which have been loaned to it, free of charge, by natural persons who own those animals, provided that that person carries out on that area of pastureland a ‘minimum activity’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c)(iii) of that regulation.










3.


Article 60 of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which an applicant for financial support under the single area payment scheme submits, in support of his application, a concession contract relating to areas of pastureland and loan-for-use contracts, concluded free of charge, in respect of animals intended for grazing on those areas, may fall within the concept of ‘artificially created conditions’ for the purposes of that provision, provided that, first, it is apparent from a combination of objective circumstances that, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the relevant rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved and, second, the intention to obtain an advantage from the EU rules by creating artificially the conditions laid down to obtain it is established.






(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.