Case C-668/21, Druvnieks: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ‘Druvnieks’ SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Support for rural development — Common rules — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 60 — Circumvention clause — Concept of ‘artificially created conditions’ — Rejection of an application for aid in view of the situation of an undertaking belonging to the same proprietor as the undertaking which applied for the aid concerned)
Date: 2023-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, administrative sanction, agricultural holding, common agricultural policy, eligibility criteria, rural development








C_2023112EN.01000701.xml










27.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/7






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ‘Druvnieks’ SIA
(Case C-668/21, (1) Druvnieks)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Support for rural development - Common rules - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 60 - Circumvention clause - Concept of ‘artificially created conditions’ - Rejection of an application for aid in view of the situation of an undertaking belonging to the same proprietor as the undertaking which applied for the aid concerned)
(2023/C 112/09)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Druvnieks’ SIA

Intervener: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Operative part of the judgment







1)


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 the conditions for rejecting an application for aid under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), laid down by national rules, are satisfied not by the applicant for the aid concerned but by another undertaking belonging to the same proprietor as that applicant, whose agricultural activity the applicant has taken over, is capable of falling within the concept of ‘artificially created conditions’, within the meaning of that article, provided that, first, it is apparent from a combination of objective circumstances that, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by those rules, the objective of the sectoral agricultural legislation has not been achieved and, second, it is established that there was the intention to obtain an advantage from European Union rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down to obtain that advantage.










2)


Article 60 of Regulation No 1306/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied even though no administrative penalty has been imposed on the applicant for the aid concerned or its proprietor.






(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.