Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:453
Date: 2023-06-08
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-636/21 – 1 
Case C-636/21 
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:  
15 October 2021 
Referring court:  
Consiglio di Stato (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
13 October 2021 
Applicant and appellant:  
NN 
Defendant and respondent:  
Regione Lombardia 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal before the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) against the judgment 
of the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Regional 
Administrative Court, Lombardy, Italy) dismissing the action brought by a farmer 
to contest an order issued by Regione Lombardia (Lombardy Regional Authority) 
denying him aid intended as market support for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors 
in Italy following an avian influenza epidemic. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the reference for a preliminary ruling 
The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the compatibility with the rules 
laid down in Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 of national legislation interpreted and 
applied so that aid to compensate the damage caused by avian influenza is granted 
only to undertakings in business on the date of submission of the application.  
Article 267 TFEU 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-636/21 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Does Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 of 
2 August 2019 preclude national legislation (such as the Ministerial Decree of 
15 January 2020 enacted by the Italian Minister for Agriculture, Food and 
Forestry Policies) which is interpreted and applied so as to limit access to 
compensation for damage caused by avian influenza only to undertakings that 
have not ceased operating on the date of submission of the application? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Article 107 TFEU 
Article 42 TFEU 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in 
agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) 
No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, in particular Article 220. 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 of 2 August 2019 on 
exceptional market support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy, 
in particular Article 2. 
European Union Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors 
and in rural areas 2014 to 2020, in particular points 66, 75(f) and 365. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreto del Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali del 15 
gennaio 2020 (Decree of the Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry 
Policies of 15 January 2020) – Rules for the implementation of Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 on exceptional market support 
measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy, in particular Articles 3 and 
4(2). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 NN, a farmer, owned three poultry farms. Due to public health restrictions caused 
by an avian influenza epidemic, he was forced to suspend operations on those 
farms several times between October and December 2017. In November 2019, 
NN sold the farms to his children. 
2 On 15 January 2020, the Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry 
Policies adopted decreto ministeriale n. 383/2020 (Ministerial Decree 
REGIONE LOMBARDIA 
 
3 
No 383/2020) laying down the rules for the implementation of Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 on exceptional market support 
measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy. The ministerial decree 
provided for aid to compensate the damage caused by the avian influenza 
epidemic. In accordance with Article 3 in particular, the following were eligible to 
apply for aid: (a) egg producers; (b) hatcheries; (c) pullet, layer and poultrymeat 
producers; (d) egg packing centres. In addition, under Article 4(2) of the same 
decree, in order to be eligible for aid, the applicant had to prove that damage was 
caused by the implementation of the public health measures put in place to contain 
the avian influenza epidemic between 1 October 2017 and 30 June 2018. 
3 On 10 April 2020, NN submitted an aid application to Lombardy Regional 
Authority pursuant to Ministerial Decree No 383/2020. Lombardy Regional 
Authority rejected the application on the grounds that, when it was submitted, NN 
did not own any poultry farms and so did not meet the requirement laid down in 
Article 3 of said ministerial decree. Specifically, that article limited access to aid 
to undertakings operating in the poultry sector. The fact that NN’s business had 
been taken over by his children was deemed irrelevant. 
4 NN brought an action against the decision of Lombardy Regional Authority 
before the Regional Administrative Court. However, the Regional Administrative 
Court dismissed the action on the grounds that the objective of Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 was to help farmers who were still in 
business by compensating them for the damage suffered – although not to 
compensate the farmer, but to support the market, and therefore active businesses. 
Moreover, according to the Regional Administrative Court, the farm sold to NN’s 
children may have been eligible for the aid, but the application should have been 
made by the new owners rather than their father, who was no longer a farmer. 
5 By appeal lodged on 19 March 2020, NN appealed the judgment of the Regional 
Administrative Court before the Council of State. In that appeal, NN expressly 
requested that the question of the correct interpretation of Article 220 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 
2019/1323 – in other words, the provisions of EU law implemented by Ministerial 
Decree No 383/2020 of 15 January 2020 – be referred to the Court of Justice 
under Article 267 TFEU. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 According to the interpretation of Lombardy Regional Authority, upheld by the 
Regional Administrative Court, Article 3 of Ministerial Decree No 383/2020 
limits access to aid to undertakings still operating in the egg and poultrymeat 
sector in Italy at the time of submission of the application. However, undertakings 
that suffered damage from the avian influenza epidemic and subsequently ceased 
operating are excluded from the scope of beneficiaries. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-636/21 
 
4  
7 That interpretation is inferred from the subject of Ministerial Decree No 383/2020, 
which is described as market support for the poultrymeat sector in Italy. The 
‘market support’ economic measure, although determined by a harmful event that 
necessarily occurs in the past, is forward-looking since it benefits farms that, at 
the time of the application, are still operating and form an integral part of the 
market. The market is defined as all farmers operating in it at any given time, and 
not those who operated in it before the provision of the aid. 
8 NN contests the interpretation of Ministerial Decree No 383/2020 endorsed by 
Lombardy Regional Authority. According to NN, the aid provided for in that 
decree is compensation for damage suffered and, as such, should be granted to 
those farmers operating at the time of the harmful event, even if they later ceased 
operating. 
9 NN further submits that the interpretation of Lombardy Regional Authority is 
unfair, since it deprives of the possibility of accessing aid the undertakings most 
severely affected by the avian influenza epidemic – in other words, those forced to 
cease operating before compensation was granted due to their accumulated debts. 
10 Lastly, NN points out that granting compensation to all undertakings operating at 
the time of the harmful event might encourage compliance with public health 
measures, since operators would be able to count on being compensated for the 
damage suffered. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
11 First, the Council of State notes that the outcome of the dispute depends on the 
interpretation of Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323, which are the EU provisions 
implemented by Ministerial Decree No 383/2020 of 15 January 2020. 
12 The Council of State also points out that the literal interpretation of EU State aid 
rules in the agricultural sector neither confirms nor rules out that poultry farms 
must be operating on the date of the application and/or payment of the benefit. 
Therefore, it would seem that the correct interpretation of those rules must be 
inferred from the objective pursued by the legislation. 
13 According to the referring court, the purpose of EU State aid rules in the 
agricultural sector is to support the market and to act as an incentive – in other 
words, to encourage the creation or development of initiatives in that sector. In the 
opinion of the Council of State, that objective appears to exclude from the scope 
of beneficiaries undertakings that ceased operating before submitting their 
application and are therefore no longer part of the market that the legislation is 
designed to support. If the farm has been sold, the new owners should be 
considered eligible beneficiaries, since they help to form the market to be 
supported. 
REGIONE LOMBARDIA 
 
5 
14 Moreover, in the view of the referring court, the principle of market support 
cannot be overlooked even in exceptional circumstances, such as epidemics of 
infectious animal diseases. According to the Council of State, even in exceptional 
circumstances the provisions at issue reasonably assume that there is a functional 
link between the aid granted to undertakings that are still operating and the 
objective of providing market support. 
15 However, the Council of State notes that the EU rules do not seem to require an 
investment plan to be submitted so as to provide an assurance that the aid will be 
pumped back into the reference market, thereby supporting it in the future. 
16 Lastly, the referring court points out that, even if the aid in question were treated 
as a form of reparation and could be granted to all farmers who suffered damage, 
irrespective of their operational status at the time of the application, that 
characterisation could fulfil, albeit indirectly, the objective of providing market 
support. The provision of compensation as a means of reparation encourages 
farmers to comply with public health regulations, and therefore increases 
consumer confidence in the measures taken to tackle epidemics.