Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2020 — SC Avio Lucos SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dolj, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central
(Case C-176/20)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: SC Avio Lucos SRL
Defendants: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dolj, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central
Questions referred
Does Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 1 preclude national legislation which establishes that the minimum activity to be carried out on agricultural areas normally kept in a state suitable for grazing is to consist in grazing with animals used by a farmer?
In so far as the abovementioned law [of the European Union] does not preclude the national legislation referred to in Question 1, may the respective provisions of Article 4(1)(a) and (c), and of Article 9(1), of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 be interpreted as meaning that a legal person who has concluded a concession contract in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings and who keeps animals under loan-for-use contracts concluded with physical persons, by which the lenders entrust to the borrowers, free of charge, the animals which they keep as owners, for the purpose of use for grazing, on the pastureland made available to the borrowers and over the agreed periods of time, may be regarded as an ‘active farmer’?
Must Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 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 2 be interpreted as meaning that artificial conditions also cover the case of a concession contract and loan-for-use contracts such as those at issue in the main proceedings?
____________
1 OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608.
2 OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.