CELEX: 62019CA0736
Language: en
Date: 2021-04-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-736/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ZS ‘Plaukti’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 — Third subparagraph of Article 16(5) — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Articles 4 and 6 — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Support for rural development — Agri-environmental payments — Aid for the maintenance of grassland biodiversity — Non-compliance with the conditions for granting those payments — Early mowing — Reduction and exclusion of those payments — Mandatory standards — Statutory management requirements — Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions — Commitments that exceed mandatory standards, minimum requirements and other appropriate mandatory requirements established by national legislation)

7.6.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 217/10
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ZS ‘Plaukti’
      (Case C-736/19) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Third subparagraph of Article 16(5) - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Articles 4 and 6 - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Support for rural development - Agri-environmental payments - Aid for the maintenance of grassland biodiversity - Non-compliance with the conditions for granting those payments - Early mowing - Reduction and exclusion of those payments - Mandatory standards - Statutory management requirements - Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions - Commitments that exceed mandatory standards, minimum requirements and other appropriate mandatory requirements established by national legislation)
      (2021/C 217/13)
      Language of the case: Latvian
      
         Referring court
      
      Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      ZS ‘Plaukti’
      
         Intervening party: Lauku atbalsta dienests
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  The third subparagraph of Article 16(5) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable where an aid applicant has not complied with the agri-environmental commitments relating to mowing requirements, where no change in the crop group has been found;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, read in conjunction with Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the same requirement can be both a minimum requirement for good agricultural and environmental condition and a requirement going beyond those minimum requirements, namely a requirement for the grant of agri-environmental payments.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.