- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-119/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 28 February 2020 — Līga Šenfelde v Lauku atbalsta dienests
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0119
62020CN0119
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
15.6.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 201/15
(Case C-119/20)
(2020/C 201/22)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant at first instance and respondent on appeal on a point of law: Līga Šenfelde
Other party to the proceedings: Lauku atbalsta dienests
Questions referred
Must Article 19(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, (1) in conjunction with other provisions of the aforementioned regulation and the European Union Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas 2014 to 2020, be interpreted as meaning that:
a farmer loses his or her ‘young farmer’ status solely by virtue of having received small farm development aid, as provided for in Article 19(1)(a)(iii) of the Regulation, two years previously;
those provisions authorise Member States to enact legislation to the effect that a farmer is not to be paid the aid provided for in Article 19(1)(a)(i) of the Regulation if he or she has already been granted the aid provided for in Article 19(1)(a)(iii);
a Member State is has the power to refuse to cumulate aid for a farmer in the case where the cumulation sequence laid down in the rural development programme agreed with the European Commission has not been complied with?
Language of the case: Latvian
(1) OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487.