Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2026:10
Date: 2026-01-15
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-615/24 – 1 
Case C-615/24 
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: 
20 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
19 September 2024 
Appellant: 
Ambito territoriale di caccia Ancona 2 
Respondent: 
Azienda Agricola Camarzano di RK 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal brought before the Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, 
Italy) by Ambito Territoriale di Caccia (Territorial Hunting Area; ATC) Ancona 2 
(‘Ambito di Caccia’) against Azienda agricola Camarzano di RK (‘the Azienda’) 
and the judgment of the Tribunale di Ancona (District Court, Ancona), which, 
upholding the judgment delivered at first instance by a magistrate, had ordered 
Ambito di Caccia to pay the amount claimed by the Azienda by way of 
compensation for the damage caused by wild fauna to its organic durum wheat 
crops in 2014. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, including a request 
for an interpretation of Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-615/24 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must [Article 3 and Article 6(1) and (2)] of Regulation No 1408/2013, read 
together, be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing for the grant 
of de minimis State aid for agriculture and granting it, during the first three years 
following the setting up of the databases at national level and, in any event, until 
such time as those databases have been fully and completely maintained, in the 
absence of a specific declaration by the applicant undertaking as to the amount 
and nature of other State aid received during the three-year fiscal period 
concerned? 
2. In particular, during that period, does the issue of a self-certified declaration 
relating to any subsidies received in the previous three years constitute an 
essential precondition for the submission of the application for compensation and 
for there to be a right to receive State aid, or may such self-declaration lawfully 
take place only at the monitoring stage and, thus, after the State aid has been 
received? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
TFEU, Articles 107 and 108. 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the 
application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector, recitals 20 and 21; 
Article 3 (establishing the system of ‘de minimis’ aid for agriculture with a 
maximum ceiling of EUR 15 000 over a period of three years), Article 6(1) (on 
preliminary monitoring formalities for the purposes of granting aid) and 
Article 6(2) (on the system of mandatory exchange of information between 
applicant undertakings and competent bodies). 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legge 29 luglio 2015, n. 115 – Disposizioni per l’adempimento degli obblighi 
derivanti dall’appartenenza dell’Italia all’Unione europea – Legge europea 2014 
(Law No 115 of 29 July 2015 laying down provisions for the fulfilment of 
obligations arising from Italy’s membership of the European Union – European 
Law 2014), which established the Registro nazionale degli aiuti di Stato (National 
State Aid Register, Italy) and provided for the establishment of Banche Dati SIAN 
(Sistema Informativo Agricolo Nazionale; National Agricultural Information 
System) (SIAN Databases). 
Regolamento regionale Marche 13 marzo 2013, n. 1 – Risarcimento dei danni 
prodotti dalla fauna selvatica e nell’esercizio dell’attività venatoria in attuazione 
dell’articolo 34 della Legge Regionale 5 gennaio 1995, n. 7 (norme per la 
protezione della fauna selvatica e per la tutela dell’equilibrio ambientale e 
AMBITO TERRITORIALE DI CACCIA ANCONA 2 
 
3 
disciplina dell’attività venatoria) (Regulation No 1 of the Marche Region of 
13 March 2013 on compensation for damage caused by wild fauna and in the 
exercise of hunting activity under Article 34 of Regional Law No 7 of 5 January 
1995 (standards for the protection of wild fauna and for the protection of 
environmental balance and regulation of hunting activity)). 
That regulation, which was subsequently repealed by Article 13 of regolamento 
regionale 10 giugno 2019, n. 3 (Regional Regulation No 3 of 10 June 2019), was 
in force at the material time, and Article 7 provided: 
‘1. The persons concerned shall submit an application for compensation within 
fifteen days from the occurrence of the event, using exclusively the form drawn up 
by the Province or the ATC, failing which they will be time-barred. 
2. Until the site visit is carried out, the applicant shall refrain from carrying out 
agricultural activities on damaged works or crops. In the event of aggravation of 
the damage before the site visit is carried out, the person concerned is required to 
supplement the application with the necessary additional documents. 
3. The application must indicate the following details, as shown in the holding 
file, failing which it will be inadmissible: 
(a) the personal data or business name of the applicant […]; 
(b) the declaration of ownership or possession and the land registry references 
for the land concerned; 
(c) the extent of the area for which the site visit is requested; 
(d) the type of crop or work damaged; 
(e) the estimate of the quantity of product lost; 
(f) information on the cause of the damage. 
[…] 
5. If the data in the application and the annexes is incomplete, supplementary 
documents shall be requested. If, within a period of fifteen days from the request 
for supplementary documents, the request is not complied with, the application 
shall be deemed to have lapsed’. 
Legge Regionale 5 gennaio 1995, n. 7 (norme per la protezione della fauna 
selvatica e per la tutela dell’equilibrio ambientale e disciplina dell’attività 
venatoria) (Regional Law No 7 of 5 January 1995 (standards for the protection of 
wild fauna and for the protection of environmental balance and regulation of 
hunting activity), as amended. Article 34 (Compensation for damage caused by 
wild fauna and in the exercise of the activity) provides: 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-615/24 
 
4  
‘1. Under Article 19(7) and (7a), ATCs provide compensation for damage 
caused to agricultural production by wild fauna and by the exercise of hunting 
activity in repopulation and capture areas, experimentation areas and public 
reproduction centres for wild fauna, conservation areas, buffer zones and the 
planned hunting area. 
[…] 
3. The owner or operator of the land must immediately report the damage to 
the management committee of the hunting area or to the concessionaire, 
respectively. 
[…]’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 In 2014, the Azienda suffered damage to its organic durum wheat crops caused by 
wild fauna. For that reason, on 28 June 20[1]2, it submitted (on a form provided 
by Ambito di Caccia, the relevant authority with territorial jurisdiction) an ‘urgent 
request for an expert’s report for the purposes of compensation for damage caused 
by wild fauna to agricultural crops [within the meaning of Article 34 of Regional 
Law No 7/95]’. 
2 On 4 July 2014, an agronomic expert, instructed by Ambito di Caccia, assessing 
the site, found that the Azienda had suffered damage from wild fauna and 
quantified it as EUR 1 000. 
3 However, the Azienda did not subsequently receive any compensation. It therefore 
sent formal notice to Ambito di Cacca in order to obtain payment. 
4 Ambito di Caccia stated that it could not pay the compensation in the short term, 
since the Regione Marche (Marche Region) had not given it the necessary 
financial resources. It did not inform the Azienda that the compensation requested 
was de minimis in nature and did not ask the latter to declare whether it had 
already received other de minimis aid during the previous two fiscal years and the 
one still in progress. 
5 On 19 January 2016, the Azienda, having taken note of the fact that Ambito di 
Caccia did not intend to pay the compensation, brought an action before the 
Giudice di pace (Magistrate, Italy), seeking an order that Ambito di Caccia pay it 
EUR 1 000, by way of compensation for the damage caused by the wild fauna to 
its crops. 
6 The Magistrate, by an immediately enforceable injunction, ordered Ambito di 
Caccia to pay the sum claimed. 
AMBITO TERRITORIALE DI CACCIA ANCONA 2 
 
5 
7 Ambito di Caccia brought an action against that injunction, requesting that the 
Marche Region be summoned to appear before the court and arguing on the merits 
that the sum that it had been ordered to pay was not due, since, first, the Marche 
Region had not allocated to it the subsidy to which it was entitled and, secondly, 
following delibera regionale n. 103 (Regional Decision No 103) of 15 February 
2016, the de minimis scheme had been introduced, so the Azienda had the burden 
of completing the appropriate forms and of demonstrating compliance with the 
compensation thresholds. 
8 The Azienda requested that the action brought against the injunction be rejected. 
9 The Magistrate upheld the injunction and rejected the action brought against it. In 
particular, he stated that the completion by injured parties of the de minimis form 
was not a necessary precondition for the payment, since, without it, the competent 
body could in any event verify the aid already received by the undertaking, by 
means of a special register established by the State and made available by the 
Region. Finally, he noted that the Region had paid Ambito di Caccia the subsidies 
due for the years 2014 and 2015. 
10 Ambito di Caccia brought an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrate, 
seeking a declaration that the Azienda had failed to fulfil its obligations under EU 
legislation relating to the de minimis scheme, as a result of which it was under no 
obligation to pay the compensation claimed by the Azienda. 
11 Ambito di Caccia alleged that there had been an infringement of EU law, in 
particular of Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013, which introduced the ‘de minimis’ 
scheme for the grant of subsidies (which requires injured persons to declare the 
amounts already received by way of aid, failing which the application for 
compensation will be inadmissible). It also stated that the administrative case-law 
had confirmed that compensation for damage caused by wild fauna must be 
classified as State aid and, therefore, subject to the de minimis scheme. It then 
pointed out that Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 gave rise to 
inadmissibility of the claim for compensation in the event that the Azienda 
concerned does not lodge the declaration relating to the aid received in the 
previous three years; the operational character of the Banca Dati SIAN (SIAN 
Database; national register relating to de minimis aid) cannot be relied on, since it 
was only set up on 18 July 2016 (and, thus, on a date subsequent to the facts of the 
case). 
12 By judgment No 249/2020, the Tribunale di Ancona (District Court, Ancona), 
acting as an appeal court, dismissed the appeal brought by Ambito di Caccia and 
upheld the judgment at first instance. 
13 In particular, the appeal court found that Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 (which 
was adopted on 18 December 2013 and entered into force on 1 January 2014), as a 
rule of general scope, was binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the 
Member States, and had direct effect, without it being necessary to transpose it 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-615/24 
 
6  
into national law with a national legislative act, but held that the applicant 
Azienda could not be declared bound by the procedure laid down in the 
Regulation for the following reasons: 
(a) no article in the regional regulation provided that the burden was on the 
Azienda to produce a report on any de minimis aid received in the previous 
fiscal years; instead, it was expressly provided that the persons concerned 
had to submit the application for compensation within fifteen days from the 
occurrence of the event, ‘using exclusively the form drawn up by the 
Province or the Ambito di Caccia’, failing which they would be time-barred, 
an obligation which the Azienda had fulfilled; 
(b) at the material time, in addition to the abovementioned regional regulation, 
Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013, which, in its view, laid down various ways 
in which the application for compensation could be submitted, was also in 
force; 
(c) the divergence between the provisions of the European regulation and the 
regional rules had given rise to a situation of objective and obvious 
uncertainty, not attributable to the Azienda injured party, which had no 
reason to doubt the lawfulness of the measures implemented by the regional 
administration, with the result that the failure to submit the self-certification 
could not have adverse consequences for the Azienda; 
(d) Ambito di Caccia did not justify its decision to reject the application for 
compensation by referring to the Azienda’s failure to produce the self-
certification, with the result that the latter had not been given the opportunity 
to supplement the documentation; Ambito di Caccia had not stated that the 
Azienda had received de minimis subsidies in previous fiscal years, nor did 
it appear that the Azienda had received State aid in an amount greater than 
that provided for by Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013, so the failure to submit 
the self-certification did not, in essence, confer any undue advantage on the 
Azienda. 
14 Ambito di Caccia brought an appeal before the Supreme Court of Cassation. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
15 In its appeal, the appellant requests: 
- principally, the setting aside of the judgment under appeal on the ground of 
infringement of EU law on State aid to undertakings in relation to damage caused 
to agriculture by wild fauna. It submits that in the judgment under appeal there is a 
significant lack of coordination between the hierarchies of sources; it is clear that 
the principles stated by an EU regulation, of immediate applicability, must prevail 
over any conflicting national provisions, even if only in part, and that the principle 
of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot be relied on to the contrary; 
AMBITO TERRITORIALE DI CACCIA ANCONA 2 
 
7 
- in the alternative, the reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 
16 The Azienda stated that it had acted in compliance with the formalities imposed 
by the regional framework and that the failure to apply Regulation (EU) 
No 1408/2013 was attributable to Ambito di Caccia, which had not carried out any 
monitoring activities and had never asked it to produce any self-certification 
relating to any subsidies received in the previous three years. 
17 In his written conclusions, the Procuratore Generale (General Prosecutor) before 
the Supreme Court of Cassation concluded by requesting that the appeal be 
dismissed, as unfounded, and that the request for referral to the Court of Justice be 
dismissed, as unnecessary. 
18 He stated that regolamento regionale n. 1/2013 (Regional Regulation No 1/2013), 
applicable ratione temporis, in regulating the procedures for submitting the 
application in Articles 7, 8 and 9, does not impose any burden on the Azienda to 
submit the declaration. Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 provides that 
self-certification shall be requested before the aid is granted, but in the present 
case, the certification was never requested because, at the time, the Region had not 
adapted the procedures for submitting the application for compensation to the EU 
framework, and the central register of de minimis aid provided for had not been 
set up. 
19 Moreover, according to the Prosecutor, self-certification relates to the monitoring 
phase and is not a precondition for the award of compensation. Therefore, there is 
no reason to set aside the regional regulation which did not provide for it. 
Furthermore, the Regional Court verified that the EU legislation had never been 
infringed in essence, since Ambito di Caccia had never claimed that the Azienda 
had received other aid in the previous three years in such a way as to exceed the 
limits imposed. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
20 The Supreme Court of Cassation considers that the issue which is the subject of 
the present request is of general interest for the uniform application of EU law and 
that the provisions of EU law on which an interpretation is sought have not yet 
been interpreted from the specific perspective highlighted in that request. 
Furthermore, the correct interpretation of those provisions is not so obvious as to 
leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. In that regard, it refers to the case-law 
developed by the Court of Justice, including, most recently, the judgment of 
6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Others, C-561/19. 
21 At the material time (2014), as a matter of national law, Marche Regional 
Regulation No 1/2013 was applicable, which, in regulating the procedures for 
submitting the application (Article 7), did not impose an obligation on the 
applicant Azienda to produce a self-certification as a precondition for obtaining 
compensation for damage caused by wild fauna. It merely required holdings to 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-615/24 
 
8  
submit the application using the form drawn up by the Ambito Territoriale di 
Caccia. In the substantive proceedings, it was found that the Azienda had fulfilled 
that obligation and that the ATC with territorial jurisdiction had not carried out 
any monitoring activity as to whether the Azienda met the preconditions for the 
award of the (EUR 1 000) compensation requested. According to both of the 
lower courts, in the absence of that monitoring activity, the Azienda was not 
obliged to submit any certification relating to any subsidies received in the 
previous three years. 
22 As a matter of EU law, Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 applies, Article 3 of which 
lays down the ‘de minimis’ aid scheme for agriculture with a maximum three-year 
ceiling of EUR 15 000; if a Member State has set up a general register for de 
minimis aid, the relevant database may be considered reliable after at least three 
years, before which the monitoring activity of the persons in charge of settling the 
damage claims requires the cooperation of the undertaking concerned by means of 
a declaration. This is in order to avoid any form of undue or excessive payment, 
which would result in exposure of the persons involved to financial liabilities or 
damage the State budget. 
23 Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 does not appear to provide directly 
that the preconditions for granting that aid include the production, at the time of 
the application, of a certification by the applicant agricultural undertaking. That 
regulation appears to refer to such self-certification or declaration only in 
Article 6, which does not govern the procedure for granting aid, but (read also in 
the light of recital 20) imposes on the Member State the duty to monitor whether 
the conditions for eligibility for the grant under the de minimis scheme are met. 
Thus, the production of the self-declaration appears to be subject to a specific 
request by the State, which bears the related burden in the exercise of the 
monitoring power. 
24 Failure to comply with the rules of the de minimis scheme, in addition to having 
understandable repercussions for the internal and European market, has 
consequences for undertakings (which, if they receive economic aid exceeding the 
limits laid down, may be subject to financial penalties), as well as for the national 
authorities responsible for granting aid. In particular, the European Commission 
has the power to initiate infringement proceedings against Member States that do 
not comply with EU State aid rules, which would consequently harm the 
reputation and authority of the national institutions concerned; and each Member 
State is exposed to actions for infringements of EU law. 
25 The Supreme Court of Cassation considers that it is essential to request the Court 
of Justice to interpret EU law as regards the objective existence, as a condition or 
requirement for that grant of de minimis State aid, of a declaration by the applicant 
undertaking (at least until – as in the present case – the database governed by that 
regulation has become operational and, after a further period of three years, has 
become reliable) which shows that the maximum aid thresholds have not been 
exceeded in the previous three years, irrespective of the fact that the national 
AMBITO TERRITORIALE DI CACCIA ANCONA 2 
 
9 
authority responsible for the grant has not requested it from the undertaking (in 
breach of the obligations imposed on it under that regulation) and irrespective of 
the subsequent verification that State aid in excess of the three-year maximum 
threshold has not been received. 
26 The Supreme Court of Cassation therefore considers that the relevance of the 
resolution of the issue, one way or the other, on which the outcome of the 
proceedings depends, is obvious.