Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2023:382
Date: 2023-05-04
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Tobacco
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Greece

Summary C-99/22 – 1 
Case C-99/22 
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: 
14 February 2022 
Referring court: 
Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State, Greece) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
30 December 2021 
Appellant:  
Kapniki A. Michailides SA 
Respondents: 
Organismos Pliromon kai Elegchou Koinotikon Enischyseon 
Prosanatolismou kai Eggyiseon (OPEKEPE) (Greek Payment and 
Control Agency for Guidance and Guarantee Community Aid) 
Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon (Minister for 
Agricultural Development and Food) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Application for annulment of an act of the Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou 
(National Tobacco Board) concerning reimbursement of a Community premium 
paid in error 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Raw tobacco – Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 – Validity – Interpretation – Principle of non-
retroactivity of legal rules – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – 
Article 267 TFEU 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-99/22 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Does Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 of 30 June 1992, 
which states that, where the quantity of tobacco of low class purchased by a 
processor exceeds, relative to his total purchases of the variety in question, the 
percentage indicated in Annex IV, the premium shall be reduced by 30% in 
respect of the quantity in excess of the percentage in question, infringe the 
principle of the non-retroactivity of legal rules and the principle of the protection 
of legitimate expectations? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on the common 
organisation of the market in raw tobacco (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), 
p. 206), last amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 860/92 of 30 March 1992 
(OJ 1992 L 91, p. 1), Articles 1 to 7a, 13 and 17 
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1726/70 of 25 August 1970 on the procedure 
for granting the premium for leaf tobacco (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), 
p. 587), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1413/1991 of 
29 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 15), Articles 2, 2a, 2b and 7(2) 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common 
organisation of the market in raw tobacco (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 70), Articles 1, 3, 5, 
6 and 8 to 10 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 861/92 of 30 March 1992 fixing, for the 1992 
harvest, the maximum guaranteed quantities in the raw tobacco sector (OJ 1992 
L 91, p. 2), first and second recitals 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 of 30 June 1992 fixing, for the 1992 
harvest, the norm and intervention prices and the premiums granted to purchasers 
of leaf tobacco, the derived intervention prices for baled tobacco, the reference 
qualities, and the production areas (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 22), first, third, seventh and 
ninth recitals, Article 3, Annexes I and IV 
Judgments of 11 July 1991, Crispoltoni, C-368/89, EU:C:1991:307; of 5 October 
1994, Crispoltoni and Others, C-133/93, C-300/93 and C-362/93, 
EU:C:1994:364; of 26 March 1998, Petridi, C-324/96, EU:C:1998:138; of 
17 September 1998, Pontillo, C-372/96, EU:C:1998:412; and of 6 July 2000, ATB 
and Others, C-402/98, EU:C:2000:366. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 By act of 22 September 1995 of the director of the Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou 
(National Tobacco Board, Greece) issued pursuant to Regulation No 2062/92, the 
KAPNIKI MICHAILIDIS  
 
3 
appellant was requested to reimburse a Community premium of GRD 51 564 843 
(EUR 151 327 492) paid in error. The reason given was that the premium paid to 
it exceeded the premium to which it was entitled, as the Katerini variety of 
tobacco purchased by it from the 1992 harvest was of low class and exceeded the 
percentage laid down for that class in Annex IV to the regulation, i.e. it exceeded 
20%. 
2 The appellant lodged an application for annulment of that act with the Symvoulio 
tis Epikrateias (Council of State, Greece), which referred the application to the 
Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon (Administrative Court of First Instance, Athens, 
Greece) for adjudication. The Administrative Court of First Instance, Athens, 
dismissed the application as unfounded. The appellant then brought an appeal 
before the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon (Administrative Court of Appeal, Athens), 
which was dismissed by the judgment under appeal. 
3 The Administrative Court of Appeal, Athens, found that Article 3(3) of 
Regulation No 2062/92 concerned the 1992 harvest and was intended to ensure 
the transition to the new scheme for the common organisation of the market in 
tobacco for the 1993 harvest, with the necessary amendments. It also found that 
the provision fixing premiums does not apply retroactively, as it concerns only the 
quality of the producer’s tobacco, not the time at which the contracts for the 1992 
harvest were concluded. It therefore rejected the appellant’s argument that 
Regulation No 2062/92 applies retroactively and is therefore invalid, inasmuch as 
it covers legal relationships established prior to its publication on 30 July 1992, 
including tobacco purchasing contracts with producers for the 1992 harvest signed 
by the applicant in the spring period, that is, before 1 June 1992. 
4 Furthermore, the Administrative Court of Appeal, Athens, found that nor does 
Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2062/92 infringe the principle of legitimate 
expectations. In particular, it found, in keeping with the settled case-law of the 
Court, that that principle is intended to protect all informed traders from 
unforeseeable changes in situations and legal relationships and that, in an area 
such as the common organisation of the markets, where constant adjustments are 
made to meet changes in the economic situation, traders cannot have a legitimate 
expectation that the existing legal situation will be maintained. Consequently, it 
rejected the appellant’s claim that the sudden and subsequent change to the 
Community aid scheme frustrated its expectation, based on the legal framework in 
force when the cultivation contracts were concluded, that it would receive the full 
premium rather than 30% less. 
5 The applicant appealed against the judgment of the Administrative Court of 
Appeal, Athens, before the referring court. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
6 The Court has consistently held that, although in general the principle of legal 
certainty precludes an EU measure from taking effect from a point in time before 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-99/22 
 
4  
its publication, it may exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be 
achieved so demands and the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly 
respected. That case-law also applies where the retroactivity is not expressly laid 
down by the measure itself but is the result of its content (judgment of 11 July 
1991, Crispoltoni, C-368/89, EU:C:1991:307, paragraph 17). 
7 The Court has further consistently held that the principle of the protection of 
legitimate expectations, which is one of the fundamental principles of the EU, is 
intended to protect informed traders against unforeseeable changes in situations 
and legal relationships. However, in the area of the common organisation of the 
markets, where the competent institutions have broad discretionary powers in 
matters of common agricultural policy and where constant adjustments are made 
to meet changes in the economic situation, traders cannot have a legitimate 
expectation that an existing situation will be maintained. The scope of the 
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot be extended to the 
point at which it generally prevents the application of a new rule to the future 
effects of situations created under the earlier rules. In particular, as traders cannot 
claim a vested right to a particular advantage, a possible reduction in their income 
cannot be contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (see 
judgments of 5 October 1994, Crispoltoni and Others, C-133/93, C-300/93 and 
C-362/93, EU:C:1994:364; of 26 March 1998, Petridi, C-324/96, EU:C:1998:138; 
of 17 September 1998, Pontillo, C-372/96, EU:C:1998:412; and of 6 July 2000, 
ATB and Others, C-402/98, EU:C:2000:366). 
8 Regulation No 727/70 is intended, inter alia, to encourage improvements in the 
quality of the tobacco produced and the conversion of cultivation to varieties 
which are more competitive and, in light of the direction in which it seeks to steer 
production, a norm is fixed annually for the harvest of the following calendar year 
and for the reference quality of each variety. The prices and the reference quality 
and production areas are fixed before 1 August each year for the harvest of the 
following calendar year. The regulation also provides for natural or legal persons 
who purchase leaf tobacco directly from Community growers to be granted a 
premium, provided they have concluded European cultivation contracts with the 
growers. The amount of the premium applicable to the harvest of the following 
calendar year is fixed annually, before 1 November, for each variety from the 
recognised production areas and for the corresponding reference quality. The 
amount of the premium thus fixed applies to all tobacco of the variety concerned; 
however, in order not to hinder the proper functioning of the common 
organisation of the market and the qualitative adjustment of production to market 
requirements, it may, by way of exception, be fixed for qualities other than the 
reference quality at a higher or lower amount than that which normally applies to 
all tobacco of the variety. 
9 Regulation No 727/70 was repealed by Regulation No 2075/92, which entered 
into effect from the 1993 harvest. It aims to adjust the scheme based primarily on 
a quality policy and provides that quality and other requirements must be met in 
order to qualify for the premium. The following were adopted with a view to 
KAPNIKI MICHAILIDIS  
 
5 
reforming the legislation in the raw tobacco sector, especially for the 1992 
harvest, which was not covered by the provisions of the new Regulation 
No 2075/92: (a) Regulation No 861/92 laying down the maximum guaranteed 
quantities; and (b) Regulation No 2062/92 laying down the norm, intervention 
price, premium, reference quality and production areas for each individual variety. 
10 It is clear from the scheme of Regulation No 727/1970 on the organisation of the 
common market in raw tobacco that the ‘reference quality’ determined annually, 
which is defined so as to allow as objective an assessment as possible of the 
quality of the tobacco, was one of the basic criteria used to duly determine, inter 
alia, the amount of the premium by way of regulation. However, it is not clear 
from the scheme established by those arrangements that the premium was to be 
granted to beneficiaries only if they purchased tobacco of a specific quality in 
keeping with the ‘reference quality’ determined annually. In other words, it is not 
clear that the premium depended on the beneficiary’s purchasing tobacco, under 
the cultivation contract, with the characteristics of the ‘reference quality’ of a 
variety determined by the regulations. 
11 Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2062/92 provides, first, that the premium is reduced 
by 30% where tobacco of low class, category or quality is purchased by a 
processor who is the beneficiary of a premium and the quantity of low quality 
tobacco exceeds a particular percentage relative to his or her total purchases of the 
variety in question. That percentage was fixed, in the relevant annex, at 20% for 
the Katerini variety at issue. 
12 Given that Regulation No 2062/92 on the 1992 harvest, which was not covered by 
the new Regulation No 2075/92, was adopted on 30 June 1992 and published in 
the Official Journal of the European Union on 30 July 1992, that is to say, at a 
time when cultivation contracts should already have been concluded in accordance 
with Regulation No 1726/70, the above provision of Article 3(3) of Regulation 
No 2062/92 has retroactive effect. 
13 Furthermore, the referring court is of the opinion that, although the reduction to 
the premium enacted was intended to improve the quality of tobacco varieties 
cultivated and hence their competitiveness, that objective, which was in keeping 
with the objectives of the common organisation of the market in tobacco, could 
not, however, be achieved at the time when Regulation No 2062/92 entered into 
force. As the deadline for growers and processors to conclude cultivation contracts 
had expired at that time and the operators had already made their decision 
regarding which varieties would be produced, it was not possible to attain the 
objective of preventing the cultivation of tobacco varieties which did not meet the 
qualitative criteria for the 1992 harvest. 
14 Consequently, and because of that, the referring court has doubts as to the validity 
of Article 3(3) of Council Regulation No 2062/92 (see judgment of 11 July 1991, 
Crispoltoni, C-368/89, EU:C:1991:307). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-99/22 
 
6  
15 The referring court further considers that the principle of the protection of the 
legitimate expectations of traders has also been infringed in this case as, under the 
rule in force under Regulation No 727/70, the amount of the premium applicable 
for the harvest of the following calendar year is fixed each year before 
1 November, whereas cultivation contracts must be concluded by no later than the 
end of June.