Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:86
Date: 2025-02-13
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;General provisions
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-625/23 – 1 
Case C-625/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
12 October 2023 
Referring court: 
Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
17 July 2023 
Applicant: 
Società agricola Circe di OL società semplice 
Defendants: 
ST, in his own name and as owner of the sole proprietorship 
Agricola Case Rosse di ST 
Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal before the Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), by the 
Società Agricola Circe, against the judgment by which the Corte d’appello di 
Roma (Court of Appeal, Rome, Italy) confirmed the allocation to the sole 
proprietorship Agricola Case Rosse di ST of several CAP (common agricultural 
policy) certificates previously assigned on a provisional basis to the company 
Circe, on the basis of a broad interpretation of the term ‘scission’ contained in the 
second subparagraph of Article 33(3) of Regulation No 1782/2003. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns, in the first place, the admissibility 
of a broad interpretation of the term ‘scission’ used in Article 33(3) of Regulation 
No 1782/2003 and Article 15 of Regulation No 795/2004, so as to include, in 
addition to the specific legal construct of ‘scission’ in company law, any 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-625/23 
 
2  
contractual legal event that results in agricultural land, originally cultivated by one 
holding, being allocated to two separate farmers. 
In the second place, the reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the question of 
whether, in the event that the scope of the term ‘scission’ must be limited to the 
specific legal construct in company law, EU law regards as being relevant, for the 
purpose of the final allocation of CAP certificates, other legal events that lead to a 
reduction in the area originally cultivated and the moment at which that reduction 
occurred. 
Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must the term ‘scission’ contained in Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1782/2003 and Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 be understood as 
referring to the legal construct in company law, thus entailing a change in the 
company resulting in the original property and areas under cultivation of one 
company being split into two separate properties belonging to different legal 
entities, or can it be interpreted broadly and thus apply to any contractual legal 
event that results in the original property and areas under cultivation of the 
original ‘agricultural’ company being allocated to two different entities, including 
through the transfer of quotas and the sale of land? 
2. According to the correct interpretation to be given to the provisions of 
Regulation No 1782/2003 (Articles 2, 23, 24, 33, 34, 36, 38, 43 and 44) for the 
final allocation of CAP certificates, when the single payment is first applied, is it 
relevant that the area under cultivation and the eligible hectares were reduced in 
2002, after the submission of the application by the ‘farmer’ and the provisional 
allocation of the certificates, if that reduction occurred as a result of the sale of a 
portion of the land in question in 2002, and the reduction can be applied 
automatically during the final allocation? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing 
common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy 
and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations 
(EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) 
No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) 
No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, in particular 
Article 33(3) and Articles 2, 23, 24, 33, 34, 36, 38, 43, 44, 45 and 46 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed 
rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct 
SOCIETÀ AGRICOLA CIRCE 
 
3 
support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain 
support schemes for farmers, in particular Article 15 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 Prior to the contractual events set out in paragraph 2 below, the Società Agricola 
Circe (‘Circe’), which was then owned by two brothers, OL and ST, had 
submitted an application for CAP certificates, following which 130 CAP 
certificates were provisionally allocated on the basis of the area under cultivation. 
2 Following the provisional allocation, Circe was involved in a series of related 
contractual events. Specifically, by deed of 1 August 2002, ST and his wife TZ 
sold their share of 50% of the share capital of Circe to OL and his wife MU, as a 
result of which Circe changed its name to Società Agricola Circe di OL. By 
another deed dated 1 August 2002, MU sold ST some land she owned in the 
municipality of Sezze. As a result of that sale, Circe ceased to own a portion of the 
land based on which the quota of 130 CAP certificates had been provisionally 
allocated. 
3 Following the said contractual events, Circe was finally allocated only 71 CAP 
certificates, instead of the 130 CAP certificates provisionally assigned. 
4 By application of 5 June 2006, Circe brought an action before the Tribunale di 
Roma (District Court, Rome, Italy) against AGEA, ST and the sole proprietorship 
Agricola Case Rosse di ST (‘Case Rosse’), seeking, in particular, to assert its right 
to receive 130 CAP certificates, as per the provisional allocation. By judgment of 
27 June 2011, the District Court of Rome rejected Circe’s application. 
5 The Court of Appeal of Rome subsequently ruled on the matter by judgment 
No 2632/2017 of 21 April 2017. The Court of Appeal allocated pro rata to Case 
Rosse several CAP certificates already provisionally assigned to Circe, on the 
ground that as of September 2002, the land located in the municipality of Sezze 
was no longer cultivated by Circe, but by ST and Case Rosse. The Court of 
Appeal based its decision on a particularly broad interpretation of the final 
paragraph of Article 33 of Regulation No 1782/2003 and the term ‘scission’ used 
therein, holding that that term refers to all cases in which one farmer takes over 
from another, since CAP subsidies must be linked to the area under cultivation. 
6 By appeal No 18175/2017, Circe brought an appeal on a point of law against that 
judgment before the Court of Appeal of Rome. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 In its appeal on a point of law, Circe alleges, in particular, infringement of 
Article 15 of Regulation No 795/2004 and Article 2(a) and Articles 33, 38, 45 and 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-625/23 
 
4  
46 of Regulation No 1782/2003, as well as the ministerial decrees by which the 
Italian State implemented the EU legislation. 
8 According to the applicant, AGEA erroneously proceeded with the final allocation 
of the CAP certificates assuming that a scission of Circe had occurred, although it 
had not been documented and was, in fact, non-existent, since what had actually 
happened was simply a transfer of the share capital. 
9 EU legislation defines the concept of ‘scission’ solely by reference to the situation 
in which two new separate farmers are formed from an original farmer. The 
transfer of land is irrelevant. 
10 For the purpose of the final allocation of the CAP certificates, the applicant also 
considers irrelevant the reduction in the area under cultivation during the 
reference period, that is, in the present case, during the period from 2000 to 2002. 
In that regard, Circe notes that the CAP certificates may, under certain conditions, 
be separate from the land, since they may be transferred against consideration. 
11 By contrast, in the opinion of ST and Case Rosse, AGEA was obliged to correct 
the provisional allocation of CAP certificates automatically on the basis of the 
area actually under cultivation and the eligible hectares. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
12 According to the Supreme Court of Cassation, in order to rule on the dispute, it is 
necessary, in the first place, to interpret Article 15 of Regulation No 795/2004 and 
Article 33(3) of Regulation No 1782/2003, with particular reference to the concept 
of ‘scission’ of the agricultural holding, and, in the second place, Article 2(a) and 
Articles 23, 24, 33, 34, 36, 38, 43, 44, 45 and 46 of Regulation No 1782/2003. 
13 The interpretation of Article 33(3) of Regulation No 1782/2003 and Article 15 of 
Regulation No 795/2004 is relevant specifically for the purposes of the first 
question referred for a preliminary ruling. 
14 The second subparagraph of Article 33(3) of Regulation No 1782/2003 provides, 
in particular, that the farmers managing the holdings following the scission are to 
have access, pro rata, to the single payment scheme under the same conditions as 
the farmer managing the original holding. Article 15 of Regulation No 795/2004 
provides that, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 33(3) of 
Regulation No 1782/2003, ‘scission’ means the scission of one farmer into at least 
two new separate farmers, of which at least one remains controlled, in terms of 
management, benefits and financial risks, by at least one of the legal or natural 
persons originally managing the holding, or the scission of one farmer into at least 
one new separate farmer, the other one remaining controlled, in terms of 
management, benefits and financial risks, by the farmer originally managing the 
holding. Article 15 of Regulation No 795/2004 also adds that the number and 
value of the payment entitlements are to be established on the basis of the 
SOCIETÀ AGRICOLA CIRCE 
 
5 
reference amount and number of hectares relating to the transferred production 
units of the original holding. 
15 In the light of those provisions, it is necessary to clarify whether the interpretation 
of Article 33 of Regulation No 2003/1782 adopted by the courts adjudicating on 
the substance, which is extensive and contrary to the literal wording of that 
provision, is correct. According to that interpretation, the term ‘scission’ used 
therein refers not only to the specific legal construct in company law, but covers 
any situation in which one farmer takes over from another. Therefore, any change 
in the area originally cultivated by a particular holding is relevant. 
16 In the opinion of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the term ‘scission’ – which is a 
term of art in company law, used by several European legislative acts in a 
corporate context – could be interpreted broadly, taking into account the flexibility 
of Regulation No 1782/2003 regarding the legal forms in which agricultural 
activity may be carried out. Nevertheless, such an interpretation, by significantly 
expanding the technical and legal meaning normally attributed to the concept of 
scission, requires the confirmation of the Court of Justice. Indeed, in the present 
case, there is neither an acte clair, which excludes the obligation for the reference 
for a preliminary ruling if there is no reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the 
provision to be applied, nor an acte éclairé, which excludes that obligation if the 
EU legislation has already been interpreted by the courts of the European Union. 
17 By contrast, the interpretation of Article 2(a) and Articles 23, 24, 33, 34, 36, 38, 
43, 44, 45 and 46 of Regulation No 1782/2003 is relevant for the purposes of the 
second question referred for a preliminary ruling. According to the referring court, 
where the answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is to limit 
the scope of the term ‘scission’ to the specific legal construct in company law, it is 
necessary to determine whether and to what extent the reduction in the area under 
cultivation in terms of eligible hectares – which occurred after the submission of 
the application and the provisional allocation of the CAP certificates, but still in 
2002 and before the final allocation – is relevant for the final allocation of CAP 
certificates to an agricultural holding when the single payment is first applied. 
18 The Supreme Court of Cassation notes, first of all, that Articles 34, 43 and 44 of 
Regulation No 1782/2003 seem to link CAP certificates to the area under 
cultivation, since each payment entitlement is linked to an ‘eligible hectare’ – that 
is to say, a hectare of any agricultural area of the holding, except areas under 
forests or used for non-agricultural activities. 
19 The referring court also points out that in the present case, the reduction in the 
original area under cultivation took place during the reference period identified in 
Article 38 of Regulation No 1782/2003 – that is to say, during the period from 
2000 to 2002, even though that was after Circe had submitted the aid application. 
However, it would appear contrary to Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation 
No 1782/2003 in particular to consider the reduction in the area under cultivation 
during the reference period as irrelevant. Indeed, Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-625/23 
 
6  
No 1782/2003 provide specifically that Member States must carry out 
administrative checks on aid applications, by verifying, inter alia, the eligible area, 
and that, where it is found that the farmer does not comply with the eligibility 
conditions, the payment is subject to reductions and exclusions. 
20 Lastly, the Supreme Court of Cassation notes that the fact that, under certain 
conditions, CAP certificates may be in circulation and may be traded in no way 
implies that their initial allocation is not correct and based on the availability of a 
particular area of cultivated land. 
21 Accordingly, in the opinion of the referring court, it could be concluded that, in 
accordance with Article 36 of Regulation No 1782/2003, the aid must be paid in 
respect of payment entitlements as defined in Chapter 3 of that regulation, 
accompanied by an equal number of eligible hectares as defined in Article 44(2) 
of that regulation.