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-714/23, Benediktinerabtei Ettal: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol (Austria) lodged on 23 November 2023 — Benediktinerabtei Ettal

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0714

62023CN0714

November 23, 2023
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

Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

C/2024/1839

11.3.2024

(Case C-714/23, Benediktinerabtei Ettal)

(C/2024/1839)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Benediktinerabtei Ettal

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

In the presence of: Benediktinerinnen Kloster St Nikolaus von Flüe

Questions referred

1.Must Article 63 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Paragraph 6(3) of the Tiroler Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 (Tyrol Law on the transfer of land; ‘the TGVG 1996’), (1) under which the acquisition of rights in agricultural land by a farmer within the meaning of Paragraph 2(5)(a) is only to be authorised by the land transfer authority if the acquisition of rights is not contrary to the principles set out in Paragraph 1(1)(a) and the acquirer of rights shows that he or she is co-farming the agricultural land in a sustainable and proper manner as part of his or her establishment?

2.If the answer to this question is in the affirmative: Does an objectively comparable situation exist between, on the one hand, a farmer whose agricultural establishment is located in close proximity to the land being acquired and who intends to co-farm that land as part of his or her establishment, and, on the other, a farmer whose agricultural establishment is not located in (in agricultural terms reasonable) close proximity to the land being acquired and who does not intend to co-farm that land as part of his or her establishment in order to contribute to the maintenance of his or her establishment, but who leaves the land concerned to local farmers to farm under a lease or, for an indefinite period, under precaria, in which case the authorisation of the land transfer authority would have to be refused under national law?

2a.If the answer to this question is in the affirmative: Does the justification of the creation, preservation or strengthening of effective agricultural or forestry establishments apply in respect of the restriction of the free movement of capital since Paragraphs 6, 7 and 7a of the TGVG 1996 are aimed at ensuring that agricultural land is farmed in a sustainable manner and in accordance with its purpose by farmers as part of their establishment in order to strengthen agricultural establishments and prevent the fragmentation and inappropriate use of farmland?

Tiroler Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 (Tyrol Law on the transfer of land 1996) (LGBI. No. 61/1996, last amended by LGBI. No. 204/2021).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1839/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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