SC Avio Lucos SRL v Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură – Centrul judeţean Dolj and Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură (APIA) – Aparat Central.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
ECLIECLI:EU:C:2022:273
Docket NumberC-116/20
Date07 April 2022
Celex Number62020CJ0116
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

7 April 2022 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Direct support schemes – Common rules – Single area payment scheme – Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 – Article 2(c) – Concept of ‘agricultural activity’ – Article 35 – Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 – National legislation requiring the production of a legal document establishing the right to use the agricultural parcel made available to the farmer under a concession contract and making the validity of such a contract conditional on the future concessionaire having the status of breeder or owner of animals – Concessionaire of an area of pastureland who has concluded a cooperation contract with animal breeders – Res judicata)

In Case C‑116/20,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara (Court of Appeal, Timişoara, Romania), made by decision of 6 February 2020, received at the Court on 28 February 2020, in the proceedings

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,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of A. Arabadjiev, President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Second Chamber, I. Ziemele (Rapporteur), T. von Danwitz, P.G. Xuereb and A. Kumin, Judges,

Advocate General: A. Rantos,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– SC Avio Lucos SRL, by M. Gornoviceanu, avocate,

– the Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură – Centrul judeţean Dolj, by N.S. Răducan, acting as Agent,

– the Romanian Government, by E. Gane and A. Rotăreanu, acting as Agents,

– the German Government, by J. Möller and S. Heimerl, acting as Agents,

– the French Government, by A.-L. Desjonquères, C. Mosser and W. Zemamta, acting as Agents,

– the Italian Government, by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by L. Vignato and R. Guizzi, avvocati dello Stato,

– the European Commission, by A. Sauka and A. Biolan, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 September 2021,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns, first, the interpretation 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 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1310/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 865) (‘Regulation No 73/2009’), second, the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for [by] that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65) and, third, the principle of res judicata.

2 The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, SC Avio Lucos SRL and, on the other hand, the Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură – Centrul județean Dolj (Agency for payments and measures for agriculture – Dolj District Centre, Romania) and the Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) – Aparat Central (Agency for payments and measures for agriculture – Headquarters, Romania) (together, ‘the APIA’) concerning the request for reimbursement of the financial support granted by the APIA to Avio Lucos under the single area payment scheme in respect of the year 2014.

Legal context

European Union law

Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999

3 Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21), provided, in paragraph 2 thereof:

‘For determining the stocking density on the holding, account shall be taken of:

(b) the forage area, meaning the area of the holding available throughout the calendar year for rearing bovine animals and sheep and/or goats. …

…’

4 That Article 12 was deleted by Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1), before Regulation No 1254/1999 was itself repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

Regulation No 1782/2003

5 Article 44 of Regulation No 1782/2003, entitled ‘Use of payment entitlements’, provided, in paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof:

‘2. “Eligible hectare” shall mean any agricultural area of the holding taken up by arable land and permanent pasture except areas under permanent crops, forests or used for non agricultural activities.

3. The farmer shall declare the parcels corresponding to the eligible hectare accompanying any payment entitlement. Except in case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, these parcels shall be at the farmer’s disposal …’

6 Regulation No 1782/2003 was repealed by Regulation No 73/2009.

Regulation No 73/2009

7 Recitals 4, 7, 23 and 25 of Regulation No 73/2009 stated:

‘(4) Furthermore, in order to avoid agricultural land being abandoned and to ensure that it is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, Regulation [No 1782/2003] established a Community framework within which Member States adopt standards taking account of the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic conditions and existing farming systems, land use, crop rotation, farming practices and farm structures. This framework should be maintained. …

(7) Regulation [No 1782/2003] recognised the positive environmental effect of permanent pasture. The measures in that Regulation aimed at encouraging the maintenance of existing permanent pasture to ensure against mass conversion to arable land should be maintained.

(23) Experience of the application of the single payment scheme shows that decoupled income support was in a number of cases granted to beneficiaries whose agricultural activities formed only an insignificant part of their overall economic activities or whose business purpose was not or only marginally targeted at performing an agricultural activity. To prevent agricultural income support from being allocated to such beneficiaries and to ensure that Community support is entirely used to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, Member States should be empowered, where such allocation occurs, to refrain from granting such natural and legal persons direct payments under this Regulation.

(25) The support schemes under the [common agricultural policy (CAP)] provide for direct income support, in particular with a view to ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community. That objective is closely related to the maintenance of rural areas. In order to avoid any misallocation of Community funds, no support payments should be made to farmers who have artificially created the conditions required to obtain such payments.’

8 Article 2 of that regulation, entitled ‘Definitions’, provided:

‘For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

(b) “holding” means all the production units managed by a farmer situated within the territory of the same Member State;

(c) “agricultural activity” means the production, rearing or growing of agricultural products including harvesting, milking, breeding animals and keeping animals for farming purposes, or maintaining the land in good agricultural and environmental condition as established in Article 6;

(h) “agricultural area” means any area taken up by arable land, permanent pasture or permanent crops.’

9 Article 6 of that regulation, entitled ‘Good agricultural and environmental condition’, provided, in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 thereof:

‘Member States shall ensure that all agricultural land, especially land which is no longer used for production purposes, is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition. Member States shall define, at national or regional level, minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental condition on the basis of the framework established in Annex III, taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic condition, existing farming systems, land use, crop rotation, farming practices, and farm structures. Member States shall not define minimum requirements which are not foreseen in that framework.’

10 Article 19 of that regulation, entitled ‘Aid applications’, stated, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘Each year, a farmer shall submit an application for direct payments indicating, where applicable:

(a) all the agricultural parcels on the holding …;

(b) the payment entitlements declared for activation;

(c) any other information provided for by this Regulation or by the Member State concerned.’

11 Under Article 34 of Regulation No 73/2009, entitled ‘Activation of payment entitlements per eligible hectare’:

‘1. Support under the single payment scheme shall be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 17 May 2023.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 17 May 2023
    ...372, punto 76). 28 Sentenze del 3 settembre 2009, Fallimento Olimpiclub (C‑2/08, EU:C:2009:506, punto 24), e del 7 aprile 2022, Avio Lucos (C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, punto 100). 29 Sentenze del 1° giugno 2006, P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) e Diputación Foral de Vizcaya/Commissione (C‑442/......
  • Opinion of Advocate General Rantos delivered on 11 April 2024.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 11 April 2024
    ...affaire et, le cas échéant, d’examiner les conséquences prévues par ledit droit (voir, par analogie, arrêt du 7 avril 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, point 99 et jurisprudence 15 Arrêt du 12 janvier 2023, Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság (C‑132/21, EU:C:2023:2, ......
  • Right to Know CLG v An Taoiseach.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 23 November 2023
    ...la scadenza dei termini previsti per questi ricorsi non possano più essere rimesse in discussione (sentenza del 7 aprile 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, punto 92 e giurisprudenza 63 Di conseguenza, il diritto dell’Unione non impone al giudice nazionale di disapplicare le norme pr......
  • QE v Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 8 December 2022
    ...del Derecho de la Unión, el Tribunal de Justicia está, en principio, obligado a pronunciarse (sentencia de 7 de abril de 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, apartado 24 De ello se sigue que las cuestiones prejudiciales referidas al Derecho de la Unión gozan de una presunción de perti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 cases
  • Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 17 May 2023.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 17 May 2023
    ...76). 28 Judgments of 3 September 2009, Fallimento Olimpiclub (C‑2/08, EU:C:2009:506, paragraph 24), and of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos (C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, paragraph 100). 29 Judgments of 1 June 2006, P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission (C‑442/03 ......
  • Right to Know CLG v An Taoiseach.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 23 November 2023
    ...la scadenza dei termini previsti per questi ricorsi non possano più essere rimesse in discussione (sentenza del 7 aprile 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, punto 92 e giurisprudenza 63 Di conseguenza, il diritto dell’Unione non impone al giudice nazionale di disapplicare le norme pr......
  • QE v Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 8 December 2022
    ...l’interpretazione del diritto dell’Unione, la Corte, in via di principio, è tenuta a statuire (sentenza del 7 aprile 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, punto 24 Ne consegue che le questioni vertenti sul diritto dell’Unione godono di una presunzione di rilevanza. Il diniego della Cor......
  • NN v Regione Lombardia.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 8 June 2023
    ...ese sentido, las sentencias de 17 de diciembre de 2015, Szemerey, C‑330/14, EU:C:2015:826, apartado 42, y de 7 de abril de 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑116/20, EU:C:2022:273, apartado 27 Por lo tanto, resulta necesario determinar cuáles son los objetivos perseguidos por el Reglamento n.º 1308/2013 y......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT