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

20In 2002, Sātiņi-S purchased 7.7 ha of peat bog, situated in a nature protection area and in a Natura 2000 conservation area of Community importance in Latvia.

21On 2February 2013, Sātiņi-S applied to the Rural Support Service for compensation for 2015 and 2016 in view of the prohibition on establishing cranberry plantations on that peatland. By decision of 28February 2017, that service rejected that application on the ground that the applicable national legislation did not provide for such compensation.

22Sātiņi-S brought an appeal against that decision before the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court, Latvia), which dismissed that action by judgment of 26March 2018.

23Sātiņi-S brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment before the referring court, the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Supreme Court, Latvia), which considers that an interpretation of Article30 of Regulation No1305/2013 is necessary in order to enable it to rule on that appeal.

24In those circumstances, the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)Must Article30(6)(a) of [Regulation No1305/2013] be interpreted as meaning that peat bogs are completely excluded from Natura 2000 payments?

(2)If the reply to the first question is in the negative, are peat bogs included in agricultural or forest areas?

(3)If the reply to the first question is in the negative, must Article30 of Regulation No1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may completely exclude peat bogs from Natura 2000 payments and that such national provisions are compatible with the compensatory aim of those payments established in Regulation No1305/2013?

(4)Must Article30 of Regulation No1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may restrict support payments for Natura 2000 areas by making support available only in connection with restrictions on a particular type of economic activity, for example, by limiting support in forest areas to forestry activities?

(5)Must Article30(1) of Regulation No1305/2013, read together with Article17 of the [Charter], be interpreted as meaning that someone is entitled to a Natura 2000 payment by virtue of his or her plans for a new economic activity if, when he or she acquired the property, he or she was already aware of the restrictions that applied to it?’