Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Latvia / Senate of the Supreme Court Department of Administrative Law / Case No.SKA-238/2020

SIA “ Sātiņi-S” (Ltd.) vs. Lauku atbalsta dienests
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Senate of the Supreme Court Department of Administrative Law
Type
Decision
Decision date
03/06/2020
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:LV:AT:2020:0603.A420186017.4.L]

Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea

Title II: Freedoms

Article 17 - Right to property

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Latvia / Senate of the Supreme Court Department of Administrative Law / Case No.SKA-238/2020
    Key facts of the case:
    On 2002 the applicant (Ltd “Sātiņi-S”) acquired areal estate, which also consist of swamp land (7,7 ha). The real estate is situated in protected nature territory included in European protected nature areas Natura-2000. According to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.264 ‘Regulation on general protection and use of specially protected nature territories’ there is an absolute ban on making cranberry plantations in specially protected nature areas. On 2017 the applicant applied to the Agricultural Support Service for the compensation of the loss due to the restrictions on making cranberry plantations in specially protected nature areas. The Agricultural Support Service replied that the applicant is not entitled to the compensation because normative acts do not envisage any compensation for the restriction of making cranberry plantations. Regulation No.1305/2013/EU provides that compensations for the restrictions of the use of protected nature territories is to be provided according to national support programmes. Latvian national support programme provides for the right to compensation for the restrictions of the use of forest land, however, it explicitly excludes swamps. Therefore, the swamps are not covered by the EU support programme on compensations for the restrictions of the use of territories in nature protection areas. When the applicant acquired the real estate in question respective normative regulation was already in force, thus the applicant knew that in the real estate it is neither allowed to make cranberry plantations, nor receive compensation due to such restriction.
     
    Key legal question raised by the Court:
    The key legal questions raised and asked to the CJEU are: 1) if the state has the competence under Regulation No.1305/2013/EU to exclude swamps from nature protection territories which are entitled to the compensation due to restrictions in such territories; 2) if the state has the competence under the EU law to define that compensation is provided only due to restrictions on particular commercial activities and not all commercial activities; 3) in the situation where an owner is neither allowed to undertake commercial activity (making cranberry plantations in the swam for commercial activity) nor is entitled to the compensation for the restriction on the use of its property for the commercial purposes is compatible with Article 17 of the CFREU taking into account the fact that the owner knew about respective situation before the acquisition of the real estate.
     
    Outcome of the case:
    The questions raised were referred to the CJEU for the preliminary ruling. The outcome is subject to the interpretation provided by the CJEU and further application of such interpretation in the particular case by Latvian courts. Registered by the CJEU as either case C-234/20 or C-238/20 (national court reffered questions to the CJEU in two cases regarding the applicant Ltd. “Sātiņi-S”. Presently two cases are registered according to curia.europe.eu data base without further infromation on case datails, thus it is not possible to identify if respective case is registered as C-234/20 or C-238/20.
     
     
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    ‘Article 17 of the CFREU provides, that nobody should be deprived his or her possessions, except where it is necessary in the interests of the society and in situations and circumstance where it is provided by the law subject to the condition that all losses should be compensated. Although the right to property includes the right to use it, including the right to gain maximum economic profit, the owner when he/she acquires the possession must take into account the restrictions applied and must acknowledge that he/she would not be able to use his/her property in the way planned. In acquiring the property with restrictions on its use the owner has the opportunity to envisage the aims for which the property will acquired. In such context the Senate considers that when acquiring the real estate the applicant should have to take into account the fact that there is a restriction on installing cranberry plantations. Consequently, the applicant has not right to claim afterwards the compensation on account of restrictions of the use of the property.’

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    “Eiropas Savienības Pamatiesību hartas 17.pants paredz, ka nevienam nedrīkst atņemt īpašumu, ja vien tas nav jādara sabiedrības interesēs, kā arī gadījumos vai apstākļos, kuri ir paredzēti tiesību aktos, ar noteikumu, ka par zaudējumiem laikus izmaksā taisnīgu kompensāciju. Lai gan tiesības uz īpašumu ietver tiesības īpašumu lietos, tostarp gūstot pēc iespējas lielāku ekonomisko labumu, īpašniekam tad, kad viņš iegādājas īpašumu, ir jāņem vērā dažādi īpašuma aprobežojumi un jāapzinās, ka jebkurā laikā nevarēs izlemt īpašumu lietot tādā veidā, kā iecerēts. Iegādājoties īpašumu ar aprobežojumiem, īpašniekam jau laiku ir iespēja ieplānot, kādiem mērķiem īpašums tiek iegādāts. Līdz ar to, Senāta ieskatā, iegādājoties īpašumu, pieteicējai bija jāņem vērā ierobežojums ierīkot purvos dzērveņu plantācijas. Attiecīgi pieteicēja vēlāk nav tiesīga, atsaucoties uz ieceri gūt ienākums no īpašumā ietilpstošās purva zemes, ierīkoto tajā dzērveņu plantācijas, pieprasīt kompensāciju par negūtajiem ienākumiem.”