Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets.
Date: 2018-08-07
31


According to settled case-law, Member States may adopt measures for the implementation of a regulation provided that they do not thereby obstruct its direct applicability or conceal its nature as an act of EU law; that they specify that they are acting in exercise of a discretion conferred on them by that regulation; and that they adhere to the parameters laid down therein (judgments of 7 July 2016, Občina Gorje, C‑111/15, EU:C:2016:532, paragraph 35, and of 30 March 2017, Lingurár, C‑315/16, EU:C:2017:244, paragraph 18).
32


It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the regulation concerned, interpreted in the light of the objectives of that regulation, in order to determine whether those provisions prohibit, require or allow Member States to adopt certain implementing measures and, particularly in the latter case, whether the measure concerned comes within the scope of the discretion that each Member State is recognised as having (judgments of 7 July 2016, Občina Gorje, C‑111/15, EU:C:2016:532, paragraph 36, and of 30 March 2017, Lingurár, C‑315/16, EU:C:2017:244, paragraph 19).
35


According to the case-law of the Court, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgments of 6 November 2014, Feakins, C‑335/13, EU:C:2014:2343, paragraph 35, and of 12 November 2015, Jakutis and Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB, C‑103/14, EU:C:2015:752, paragraph 93).
44


Next, the Court has concluded from the existence of those various objectives that the EU legislature intended to encourage early retirement in the farming sector in order to improve the viability of agricultural holdings and to create an economic incentive to older farmers to cease their activities early, and in circumstances in which they would not ordinarily do so, the supplement to the retirement pension or additional income being only one of the consequences of the application of Regulation No 1257/1999 (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 July 2016, Poland v Commission, C‑210/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:529, paragraph 39).
48


In that regard, it is established case-law, first, that where Member States adopt measures by which they implement EU law, they are required to observe the general principles of that law, which include, inter alia, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 September 2006, Elmeka, C‑181/04 to C‑183/04, EU:C:2006:563, paragraph 31, and of 26 May 2016, Județul Neamț and Județul Bacău, C‑260/14 and C‑261/14, EU:C:2016:360, paragraph 54).
50


Secondly, the right to rely on that principle extends to any person in a situation in which a national administrative authority has caused that person to entertain expectations which are justified by precise assurances provided to him (judgments of 9 July 2015, Salomie and Oltean, C‑183/14, EU:C:2015:454, paragraph 44, and of 14 June 2017, Santogal M-Comércio e Reparação de Automóveis, C‑26/16, EU:C:2017:453, paragraph 76).
51


In this regard, it is necessary to determine whether the conduct of the administrative authority in question gave rise to a reasonable expectation on the part of the person concerned and, if it did, it must then be established whether that expectation was legitimate (see judgments of 14 September 2006, Elmeka, C‑181/04 to C‑183/04, EU:C:2006:563, paragraph 32, and of 9 July 2015, Salomie and Oltean, C‑183/14, EU:C:2015:454, paragraph 45).
52


However, according to the Court’s case-law, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot be relied upon against an unambiguous provision of EU law; nor can the conduct of a national authority responsible for applying EU law, which acts in breach of that law, give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of a person of beneficial treatment contrary to EU law (judgments of 1 April 1993, Lageder and Others, C‑31/91 to C‑44/91, EU:C:1993:132, paragraph 35; of 20 June 2013, Agroferm, C‑568/11, EU:C:2013:407, paragraph 52, and of 20 December 2017, Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkühlgemüse, C‑516/16, EU:C:2017:1011, paragraph 69).
66


In the third place, it is true that, as noted by the Latvian Government, economic operators are not justified in having a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the EU institutions, or by national authorities implementing EU law, in the exercise of their discretion will be maintained (judgments of 22 October 2009, Elbertsen, C‑449/08, EU:C:2009:652, paragraph 45, and of 26 June 2012, Poland v Commission, C‑335/09, EU:C:2012:385, paragraph 180).