(Reference for a preliminary ruling– European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)– Regulation (EU) No1305/2013

68Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

1.Article30(6)(a) of Regulation (EU) No1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No1698/2005 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not exclude, in principle, peat bogs from Natura 2000 payments, in so far as those peat bogs are situated in Natura 2000 areas designated pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and to Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, and fall within the concept of ‘agricultural area’ or ‘forest’, within the meaning of, respectively, points (f) and (r) of Article2(1) or of Article2(2) of Regulation No1305/2013, which may thus be eligible for the payments referred to in Article30(1) of that regulation as ‘Natura 2000 agricultural and forest areas’ within the meaning of Article30(6)(a) thereof.

2.Article30(6)(a) of Regulation No1305/2013 must be interpreted as allowing a Member State to exclude from Natura 2000 payments, first, ‘Natura 2000 agricultural areas’ within the meaning of that provision, including, in that case, peat bogs which come within such areas and, second, and in accordance with Article2(2) of Regulation No1305/2013, peat bogs situated in Natura 2000 areas, which, in principle, come within the concept of ‘forest’, within the meaning of Article2(1)(r) of that regulation, and thus of ‘Natura 2000 forest areas’ within the meaning of Article30(6)(a) of that regulation. The latter provision must also be interpreted as permitting a Member State to limit such payments for Natura 2000 forest areas, including, where appropriate, peat bogs, to situations where the designation of those areas as ‘Natura 2000 areas’ has the effect of adversely affecting the exercise of a specific type of economic activity, in particular forestry.

3.Article30 of Regulation No1305/2013, read in conjunction with Article17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a Natura 2000 payment must not be granted to the owner of a peat bog that comes within the Natura 2000 network on the basis that a restriction has been made to an economic activity which may be carried out on such a peat bog, in particular the prohibition on planting cranberries, where, at the time when he or she acquired the immovable property concerned, the owner was aware of such restriction.

[Signatures]

*Language of the case: Latvian.