EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-668/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 8 November 2021 — SIA Druvnieks v Lauku atbalsta dienests

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0668

62021CN0668

November 8, 2021
With Google you find a lot.
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

24.1.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/18

(Case C-668/21)

(2022/C 37/24)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and appellant: SIA Druvnieks

Other party in the appeal proceedings: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Questions referred

1.Is the application of Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy justified where an undertaking owned by the proprietor of the company applying for aid, which is distinct from the latter, has committed an irregularity the financial consequences of which have not been rectified and the company applying for aid has taken over that undertaking’s agricultural business?

2.Is it possible to apply 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 in such a way that a person is found to have circumvented the administrative penalty provided for in Article 64(4)(d) of that regulation, despite the fact that, in respect of the applicant company or its proprietor, no decision has been adopted imposing on it an administrative penalty resulting in its exclusion from eligibility for the aid?

3.Is it possible to apply Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 in such a way that the authority responsible for examination of the project proposal must verify whether other undertakings previously owned by the proprietor of the company applying for aid satisfy the provisions of Article 2(14) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and, if the conditions are not fulfilled, reject the project proposal without an additional individual assessment of the factual circumstances?

(1) 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 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(2) OJ 2014 L 193, p. 1.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia