Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62009CA0061

Case C-61/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany)) — Landkreis Bad Dürkheim v Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment scheme — Common rules for direct support schemes — Concept of eligible hectare — Non-agricultural activities — Conditions for allocation of an agricultural area to a holding)

OJ C 346, 18.12.2010, p. 10–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany)) — Landkreis Bad Dürkheim v Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion

(Case C-61/09) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Common rules for direct support schemes - Concept of ‘eligible hectare’ - Non-agricultural activities - Conditions for allocation of an agricultural area to a holding)

2010/C 346/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landkreis Bad Dürkheim

Defendant: Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Interpretation of Article 44(2) of 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) 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) — Interpretation of the terms ‘agricultural area’ and ‘non-agricultural activity’ with regard to a situation in which the objective of environmental protection takes precedence over the objective of agricultural production — Conditions for allocation of an agricultural area to a holding

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 44(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 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, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2013/2006 of 19 December 2006, must be interpreted as not precluding an area from being eligible for aid where, while it is admittedly also used for agricultural purposes, the overriding objective is landscape management and nature conservation. In addition, the fact that the farmer is subject to the instructions of the nature conservation authority does not deprive an activity which meets the definition referred to in Article 2(c) of that regulation of its agricultural character.

2.

Article 44(2) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

it is not necessary, for an agricultural area to be considered as allocated to the farmer’s holding, that it be at his disposal against payment on the basis of a lease or another similar type of contract to let;

—

the allocation of an agricultural area to a holding is not precluded by the fact that the area is placed at the farmer’s disposal free of charge, the farmer being obliged only to take over the contributions to a trade association, for a specific use and for a limited period of time in accordance with the objectives of nature conservation, on condition that the farmer is able to use that area with a degree of autonomy sufficient for his agricultural activities for a period of at least 10 months; and that

—

it is without prejudice to the allocation of the area in question to the farmer’s holding that the farmer is obliged to carry out certain tasks for a third party in return for payment, provided that the area is also used by the farmer for his own agricultural activities in his name and on his own behalf.

(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.

Top