A compensation payment must not be granted to the owner of a peat bog covered by the ‘Natura 2000’ network on the grounds that the owner cannot carry out an agricultural economic activity on that bog, whereas the owner was aware of such a restriction at the time they acquired the property concerned, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on Thursday 27 January (Cases C-234 & 23/20).
Case C-234/20. In 2002, Sātiņi-S purchased 7.7 hectares of peatland located in a conservation area of Community importance ‘Natura 2000’ in Latvia. This person is challenging the Latvian Court’s refusal to grant them a payment to compensate for the ban on cranberry plantations on peat bogs.
In a case brought by the Latvian Supreme Court, the CJEU interprets the Regulation (1305/2013) on support for rural development by the EAFRD Fund, which authorises the granting of annual compensation per hectare of agricultural land or forest for the additional costs and/or loss of income incurred as a result of the application of the Habitats (92/43), Birds (2009/147) and Water Directives.
In its judgment, the Court finds that peatlands located in a ‘Natura 2000’ area, which do not fall under the definition of ‘agricultural area’ or ‘forest’ within the meaning of Regulation 1305/2013, are not eligible for payments under the same Regulation (Article 30). A Member State may therefore exclude peatlands from payments under the ‘Natura 2000’ network.
Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion that Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which provides for compensation in the event of deprivation of the right to property, does not apply in the present case, as the prohibition on planting cranberries does not intolerably infringe Sātiņi-S’s right to property.
See the judgment: https://bit.ly/34j7clS
Case C-238/20. In 2002, Sātiņi-S also purchased two properties (687 hectares, including 600 hectares of ponds) in a protected nature reserve included since 2005 in the ‘Natura 2000’ network. This person is seeking compensation for damage to aquaculture caused by protected birds. The Latvian authority rejected this request on the grounds that the owner received €30,000 in State aid over a period of three fiscal years by Regulation (717/2014) on de minimis aid in the fisheries and aquaculture sector.
According to the Court, the costs of complying with regulatory obligations to protect the environment and wildlife, and the costs of dealing with the damage that wildlife may cause to an aquaculture business, are the normal costs of running such a business. The granting of compensation for damage caused by protected animals therefore constitutes an economic advantage to which an undertaking would not be entitled under normal market conditions and therefore constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.
See the judgment: https://bit.ly/3r5FRfK (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)