Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:4
Date: 2022-01-13
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Milk products
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-377/19 - 1 
Case C-377/19 
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:  
13 May 2019 
Referring court:  
Consiglio di Stato (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
4 April 2019 
Appellants:  
Benedetti Pietro and Angelo S.S. and Others 
Respondent:  
Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) 
  
Subject matter of the action in the main proceedings 
Appeal seeking to set aside a judgment of the TAR Lazio (Regional administrative 
court, Lazio) concerning a twofold communication from AGEA quantifying the 
additional levy imposed on the appellants, who are producers of cow’s milk, for 
exceeding their milk quota in the 2005/2006 marketing year, and specifying, for 
each producer, the unduly levied amounts which must be returned to them. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the reference 
Interpretation, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, of Article 16 of Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for 
applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk 
and milk products sector (OJ 2004 L 94, p. 22). 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-377/19 
 
2  
Question referred   
In circumstances such as those described, does Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 
595/2004 preclude a national provision, such as that laid down in Article 9 of 
Decree-Law No 49/2003 in conjunction with Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No 157 
of 24 June 2004, which lays down the criterion for identifying the priority 
category to which a levy unduly charged is to be refunded as whether or not the 
purchaser has made a regular monthly payment. 
Applicable provisions of EU law 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy 
in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 123): Article 11 and 
Article 13(1). 
Commission Regulation No 595/2004: Article 16 
Provisions of national law relied on (in the version in force at the time) 
Decree-Law No 49 of 28 March 2003 reforming the rules on the application of the 
additional levy in the milk and dairy products sector (converted, with 
amendments, by Law No 119 of 30 May 2003)  
Article 5 ‘Obligations of purchasers’ ‘1 By the month following the reference 
month, purchasers shall forward to the regions and the autonomous provinces that 
have recognised them the data deriving from the updates to the monthly register 
maintained pursuant to Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1392/2001/EC, even when 
they have not collected milk The purchasers must deduct the additional levy, 
calculated on the basis of Article 1 of Regulation No 3950/92/EEC, as amended, 
in relation to milk delivered in excess of the individual reference quantity 
allocated to individual transferring producer, allowing for the variations that have 
occurred during the period. Within the same period, the purchasers shall also 
forward to the regions and the autonomous provinces that have recognised them 
and to the AGEA the update of the monthly register maintained within the 
meaning of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 1392/2001/EC, as regards quantities of 
milk only. Article 1(7) of the decree provides for electronic forms of data 
transmission and sets out the accounting obligations of purchasers 2. Within 30 
days of the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, ... purchasers shall pay 
the amounts deducted into the relevant account held at the AGEA’s banking entity 
and send a copy of the payment receipts or guarantees referred to in paragraph 6 
to the regions and autonomous provinces.’ 
Article 9 ‘Refund of levies overpaid’: ‘1. At the end of every period, the AGEA: 
(a) shall draw up a statement of the deliveries of milk made and the total levy paid 
by the purchasers in accordance with the performance of the obligations set out in 
Article 5; (b) shall calculate the total national levy payable to the European Union 
BENEDETTI PIETRO AND ANGELO AND OTHERS 
 
3 
for excess production in the deliveries; (c) shall calculate the amount of the levy 
overpaid. ... 3. The amount referred to in paragraph 1(c) ... shall be shared among 
producers holding a quota that have paid the levy, in accordance with the 
following criteria and in the following order: 
(a) among producers for which the whole or part of the levy imposed on them was 
unduly collected or is no longer due; 
(b) among producers who are owners of holdings in mountain areas, as referred to 
in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999; 
(c) among producers who are owners of holdings in less-favoured areas, as 
referred to in Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999; 
(c-bis) among producers which were prevented, on the basis of an order of the 
competent health authority, from moving animals, in areas affected by widespread 
infectious diseases, for at least 90 days during a marketing period and which, for 
that reason, were forced to produce a higher quantity ... . 
4. If these repayments do not exhaust the amount available referred to in 
paragraph 3, the remainder shall be shared among producers holding a quota that 
have paid the levy, except for those that have exceeded their own individual 
reference quantity by more than 100 per cent, in accordance with the following 
criteria and in order: (…)’. 
Decree-Law No 157 of 24 June 2004, ‘Urgent provisions on the labelling of some 
agri-food products, and on agriculture and fisheries’ (converted, with 
amendments, into Law No 204 of 3 August 2004) 
Article 2, ‘Urgent provisions on agriculture and the additional levy in the milk and 
dairy sector’ ‘(...) 3. Pursuant to Article 9 of [Decree-Law No 49/2003], overpaid 
amounts of the levy paid monthly by producers that are up to date with their 
payments shall be refunded to those producers At the end of that operation, if the 
remaining total of the levy allocations to be made is greater than the levy payable 
to the EU, plus 5 per cent, AGEA shall cancel the levy overcharged for producers 
that have not yet made the monthly payments, applying the priority criteria laid 
down by paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 9, without prejudice to the sanctions 
referred to in Article 5(5) of the Decree-Law’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 Until 31 March 2015, a quota system for the production of milk and milk products 
linked to an additional levy on deliveries and direct sales exceeding the quota was 
in force. The stages of collection (through deductions from the purchase price) 
and of the payment to the AGEA as well as the refund, where applicable, to the 
producers of the undue levy were, in the case of deliveries, assigned to the ‘first 
purchaser’. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-377/19 
 
4  
2 The appellants in the main proceedings are all producers which, for the 2005/06 
marketing year, sold milk (to Latte più srl) in excess of their individual reference 
quantity and which were accordingly charged the additional levy for that period 
by the AGEA. However in the context of the compensation transactions, certain 
amounts were found to have been unduly levied. AGEA notified Latte più 
accordingly, for each producer, of the amounts to be repaid, within the meaning of 
Article 2(3) of Decree Law 157/2004, to those producers who were found to be 
generally in compliance with payment of the levy, on the basis of the payment 
declarations submitted by the purchaser and verified. 
3 The main subject matter of the producers’ complaints, initially before the Lazio 
Regional Administrative Court and now, in an appeal against the judgment 
rejecting them, before the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) is the mechanism 
for allocating and refunding amounts found to have been unduly levied.  
The essential arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
4 The refund system referred to in Article 2(3) infringes Article 13 of Regulation 
No 1877/2003 and Article 16 of Regulation No 595/2004.  
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
5 When, in respect of producers of excesses, other producers have not used up their 
reference quantity and the amounts levied by the Member State are found to 
exceed those payable in turn by the latter to the European Agricultural Guidance 
and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the Member State, under Regulation No 
1788/2003, has two options for managing the overpayment. It may either allocate 
it to producers who undertake to abandon their own milk production permanently 
or redistribute it to producers who fall within the priority categories established by 
that State on the basis of objective criteria. 
6 Regulation No 595/2004, implementing Regulation No 1788/2003 and applicable 
to the facts of the present case, identifies as the first priority criterion for refunds 
that all or part of the levy has been wrongly charged (Article 16(a)); Article 9 of 
Decree-Law No 49/2003 also establishes the priority of producers for which all or 
part of the levy imposed is unduly collected or which is no longer due.  
7 By the provisions of Article 2(3) of Decree Law No 157/2004, the Italian 
legislature appears however to extend the criterion set out in Article 9 of Decree 
Law No 49/2003 and create a new category which goes beyond all the others: a 
category of producers, which, in addition to the abovementioned circumstances 
are also ‘up to date with their [monthly] payments’, namely producers in respect 
of which the purchaser has fulfilled all the requirements set out in Article 5 of 
Decree Law No 49/2003, in particular the monthly payment of the amounts to the 
account of the AGEA. 
BENEDETTI PIETRO AND ANGELO AND OTHERS 
 
5 
8 That additional condition clearly leads to unequal treatment between producers of 
excess quantities, due to the behaviour of a third party — the purchaser— which 
cannot be controlled or adjusted by the producer. This is precisely the situation of 
the appellants, for which the purchaser Latte più, has not paid the levy, in 
accordance with a court order. 
9 The Council of State therefore questions the legality of the link thus established 
by Decree Law No 157/2004 between the payment stage and reimbursement stage 
for an amount unduly levied and, pending the Court’s ruling in Case C-46/18, 
Caseificio Sociale San Rocco and Others, raises a new issue of the compliance of 
Article 2(3) of Decree Law No 157/2004 with EU law, with particular reference to 
the obligation (and not a mere option) on the part of the purchaser to deduct at 
source through a levy the sums payable by producers of excess quantities.