# C_2012194EN.01001302.xml

| 30.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Italia Zuccheri S.p.A. and Co.Pro.B. v AGEA and Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali

(Case C-188/12)

2012/C 194/21

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Italia Zuccheri S.p.A. and Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli società cooperativa agricola (Co.Pro.B.)

Appellants:

Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali

Respondents:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 (1) and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the phrase ‘production facilities’ does not include facilities used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it and that, therefore, in the case of facilities such as silos, it is necessary to complete a case-by-case analysis in order to establish whether those facilities are connected with the ‘production line’ or whether they are connected with other activities, different from production? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 (1) and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the phrase ‘production facilities’ does not include facilities used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it and that, therefore, in the case of facilities such as silos, it is necessary to complete a case-by-case analysis in order to establish whether those facilities are connected with the ‘production line’ or whether they are connected with other activities, different from production?

1

2

| 2. | In particular, is Article 4 of Commission Regulation No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 to be interpreted as meaning that facilities — such as silos — which are used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar purely for the purposes of marketing it, being independent from the production cycle, are part of the facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(c), rather than Article 4(1)(a) and (b), in accordance with the wording and objectives of Regulation No 320/2006 and Regulation No 968/2006, in particular Recital 4 in the preamble to the latter? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In particular, is Article 4 of Commission Regulation No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 to be interpreted as meaning that facilities — such as silos — which are used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar purely for the purposes of marketing it, being independent from the production cycle, are part of the facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(c), rather than Article 4(1)(a) and (b), in accordance with the wording and objectives of Regulation No 320/2006 and Regulation No 968/2006, in particular Recital 4 in the preamble to the latter?

| 3. | In the alternative, with regard to Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and with regard to the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, is Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 invalid if interpreted as also including among the facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 968/2006 those facilities used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it, given that it is clear that the objective of Regulation No 320/2006 is to reduce the production capacity of the sugar company and not to prevent the company from being able to operate in the sector of the mere marketing of the product, using sugar obtained relying on production quotas belonging to other facilities or businesses? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the alternative, with regard to Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and with regard to the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, is Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 invalid if interpreted as also including among the facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 968/2006 those facilities used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it, given that it is clear that the objective of Regulation No 320/2006 is to reduce the production capacity of the sugar company and not to prevent the company from being able to operate in the sector of the mere marketing of the product, using sugar obtained relying on production quotas belonging to other facilities or businesses?

| 4. | In the further alternative, in any event, are Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) [No 968/2006] of 27 June 2006 valid, by the yardstick of the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, if interpreted as including in the concept of ‘production facilities’ or facilities ‘directly related to ... production’ those facilities used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the further alternative, in any event, are Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) [No 968/2006] of 27 June 2006 valid, by the yardstick of the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, if interpreted as including in the concept of ‘production facilities’ or facilities ‘directly related to ... production’ those facilities used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42

1

(2)  OJ 2006 L 176, p. 32

2

---