Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:959
Date: 2025-12-11
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Anonymised version 
Translation C-497/24 – 1 
Case C-497/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
17 July 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunale ordinario di Ancona (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
27 June 2024 
Applicant: 
GC, in his own name and as owner of the agricultural holding 
bearing the same name 
Defendant: 
Regione Marche 
  
TRIBUNALE ORDINARIO DI ANCONA (DISTRICT COURT, ANCONA) 
FIRST CIVIL CHAMBER 
The Judge […] delivers the following 
ORDER 
in the case […] brought by: 
GC, in his own name and as owner of the agricultural holding bearing the same 
name, […] Ancona […] 
applicant 
v 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 6. 2024 – CASE C-497/24 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
REGIONE MARCHE (MARCHE REGION, ITALY) […] Ancona […] 
defendant 
* * * * 
1 By duly served writ of summons GC asked the court to establish and declare that 
aid application No 15670012135 submitted by him in relation to decreto n. 253 
del 14 ottobre 2020 (Order No 253 of 14 October 2020) – by which, within the 
framework of the National Support Programme in the Wine Sector (NSPWS-
CMO) for the year 2020/2021, the regional notice for the call for proposals 
relating to implementation of the wine CMO Investments measure referred to in 
Article 50 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 was approved – was fully eligible 
and, accordingly, to establish and declare that the procedure brought by the 
Regione Marche (Marche Region, Italy) for recovery of the sum of 
EUR 92 185.82, previously paid to him as an advance, was unlawful and/or 
unfounded. 
To support his right to receive the entire funding and, therefore, to demonstrate 
that the decision taken by the Marche Region was in error, the applicant adduced 
the following arguments: 
- infringement and misapplication of Article 1(192) of legge n. 160 del 
27 dicembre 2019 (Law No 160 of 27 December 2019) (‘the 2020 Budget Law’), 
and of Article 12 of the general provisions, given that the Region wrongly held 
that the EU contribution for the wine CMO measure may be combined with a tax 
credit only up to the amount of the maximum contribution [from the European 
Union] for the specific application for support eligible for funding (in the present 
case 40%), whereas, under Article 1(192) of the 2020 Budget Law, a tax credit 
may be freely combined with other aid intended to cover the same costs (thus, also 
with the measure referred to in the notice in question), subject only to the express 
condition that it must not exceed 100% of the cost incurred; 
- infringement and misapplication of Article 1(192) of the 2020 Budget Law, 
with reference to Article 1 of the general provisions and, in any event, to the 
principles governing administrative action, given that the requirements imposed 
by the Ministry [of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies] as contained in 
Letter No 434497 of 15 September 2021 and the operational instructions from the 
office within the Italian agricultural payments agency (AGEA) responsible for the 
wine CMO, are not only of lower rank than the 2020 Budget Law but were also 
allegedly issued after the date on which the CMO application was submitted 
(which was 30 November 2020), the date on which the equipment was purchased 
(the two invoices date back to 22 December 2020 and 12 June 2021 respectively), 
and the date of the initial notification of the outcome of the preliminary 
investigation. Similar conclusions should be reached with regard to the opinion 
issued by the EU Commission’s departments ARES (2020)6839797 of 
17 November 2020, since it is merely an internal opinion of which the 
REGIONE MARCHE 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
undertakings concerned would not have been informed and which, in any case, 
was delivered subsequent to the notice and, moreover, as expressly stated by the 
signatory, ‘expresses the opinion of the Commission’s services and does not bind 
the European Commission’; 
- the applicant’s legitimate expectation as to the possibility that the tax credit 
and EU contribution could be combined, and infringement of the principle that 
decisions must have a proper legal basis and of the principle of non-retroactivity, 
given that it was not possible – either through an examination of the legislative 
provisions in force or even of the notice – to imagine the fate that was to befall the 
aid application submitted by the applicant, who had made the investments in 
question with a more than legitimate expectation that the tax credit and EU 
contribution could be combined under the terms set out in the 2020 Budget Law, 
after the application had been accepted and considered eligible for funding; 
- infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity, given that, in the light of 
the clarification provided by AGEA in Memorandum No 0013145 of 17 February 
2022, even if the tax credit provided for by the 2020 Budget Law were to be 
considered in theory not able to be combined with other aid payments covering 
the same costs to the extent indicated by the national legislature, this should only 
apply to regional notices for calls for proposals issued after the European 
Commission’s Letter ARES (2020)6839797 of 17 November 2020. 
2 The Marche Region duly joined the proceedings […]. [passage on the 
jurisdiction of the referring court] On the merits, it asked for the action to be 
dismissed and took a specific position on all the arguments raised by the applicant, 
pointing out that: 
- the conflict between the provision of national law permitting the 
combination of tax credits and the specific rules governing individual EU benefits 
laid down by Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 
is resolved by the principle of speciality (lex specialis), under which more specific 
rules will prevail over more general rules, even if the latter were enacted 
subsequently; 
- according to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, an EU regulation ‘shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in 
all Member States’, and thus directly applicable EU rules take precedence over 
incompatible internal provisions, whether prior or subsequent; 
- the notice repeatedly referred to the prohibition of combination and the 
limitation applied derives directly from Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1308/2013, as such predating the publication of the notice and the consequent 
acceptance of the beneficiary; 
- the basis for the prohibition of combination does not derive from the opinion 
issued by the European Commission but, rather, directly from Regulation (EU) 
No 1308/2013. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 6. 2024 – CASE C-497/24 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
The Marche Region also pointed out that if the interpretation given by the 
European Commission to the principle of combination within the limits set by the 
EU regulations were to be deemed unlawful, the court could avail itself of the 
possibility of submitting a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. 
3 […] [proceedings] 
* * * * 
4 To examine the reasons put forward by the applicant in support of the application, 
the court must verify whether the argument adduced by the Marche Region – 
according to which the combination of tax credits and EU contributions is 
permissible up to the amount of the maximum contribution [from the European 
Union], which in the present case is 40% under Article 50(4) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1308/2013 – is correct. 
This is a question where the interpretation is uncertain, which makes it necessary 
to initiate a procedure for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union under Article 267 TFEU. 
5 To understand the reasons why use of this instrument is necessary, it seems 
appropriate first of all to reconstruct in fact what happened in this case. 
By means of Order No 253/PSD of 14 October 2020, the Marche Region 
approved the call for proposals relating to the Investment measure referred to in 
Article 50 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 for the year 2020/2021 […]. 
On 30 November 2020, the applicant submitted aid application No 15670012135 
covering a project with a total value of EUR 392 662.59, which envisaged 
interventions to ensure high energy efficiency and interventions aimed at 
enhancing innovation and product quality, through the purchase of new insulated 
tanks that would help to enable automated, remote management of the various 
stages of winemaking, within the scope of the so-called innovation 4.0 approach 
[…]. 
By decreto n. 184/PSD del 27 maggio 2021 (Order No 184/PSD of 27 May 2021), 
amending the previous decreto n. 57/PSD del 15 febbraio 2021 (Order No 57/PSD 
of 15 February 2021), the Region approved the ranking list for the applications 
accepted for funding, including the applicant’s application in second position, for 
an expenditure of EUR 392 662.59, with an eligible contribution of 
EUR 157 065.04. Of this amount, 80% (or EUR 125 652.03) was payable in 
advance, subject to the presentation of an insurance policy guaranteeing payment 
equal to 110% of the contribution amount, with the remaining 20% to be paid in 
full on completion of the works, which were to be completed by 15 July 2022 
[…]. 
REGIONE MARCHE 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
On presentation of the application for payment of advance No 15680000328 
accompanied by payment guarantee insurance policy No 05100691001291 issued 
by Società Cattolica di Assicurazione, on 13 September 2021 AGEA, the body 
responsible for disbursement of the aid, paid out the advance payment of 
EUR 125 652.03 […]. 
The applicant subsequently submitted a request for a variant of the application, 
which was granted by decreto n. 292/AGM del 1 luglio 2022 (Order No 292/AGM 
of 1 July 2022). This redetermined the total expenditure amount as 
EUR 392 044.85 and the corresponding eligible contribution as EUR 156 817.94 
[…]. 
The applicant then submitted balance payment application No 15680008404, 
declaring that it had incurred expenditure of EUR 389 256.21, which was lower 
than the expenditure eligible under Order No 292/AGM of 1 July 2022, and 
requested the contribution of EUR 155 702.48, of which EUR 30 050.45 was 
outstanding […]. 
However, on the basis of the eligibility checks carried out by the Decentralised 
Agricultural Structure (DAS) for Ascoli Piceno and Fermo, the application for 
payment of the balance was assessed as partially eligible because […]: 
‘A) INVESTMENTS shown in row 1 of Table 2 
Reference is made to the investment in line 1 of Table 2, concerning the 
construction and supply/installation of a steel aerated container for compressor 
and air/nitrogen tanks EUR 8 150.00 + supply and installation of piping and 
connections for nitrogen generator and compressed air generator EUR 4 850.00. 
The amount of EUR 13 000.00 (corresponding contribution EUR 5 200.00) is not 
eligible as the supply/installation of the investments took place before the variant 
application was submitted. 
Examination of the balance documentation in fact shows that the invoices and 
corresponding payment slips are chronologically prior to the date on which the 
variant application was submitted on the 
SIAN system (AGEA file reference AVY.2022.0000558 of 13 May 2022’; 
B) investments shown in rows 3, 5, 6 and 7 of table 2 (relating to invoices No 76 
of 22 December 2000 and No 29 of 26 May 2021 issued by the company […] 
[…], in the respective amounts of EUR 63 000.00 and EUR 223 380.00, for an 
overall total of EUR 286 380.00, because ‘the above invoices have benefited/will 
benefit from contributions from tax relief available under Law No 160 of 
27 December 2019 (with a 50% aid rate). The contribution requested for the 
investments referred to in the invoices listed above is not admissible because, 
according to information provided by the regional authorities ([…]), “the 
competent department within the Ministero delle Politiche agricole alimentari e 
forestali (Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies) has clarified that 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 6. 2024 – CASE C-497/24 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
the combination of EU contributions for the wine CMO measure (Article 50 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013) and the tax benefits provided by the budget laws 
for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 is possible up to the amount of the maximum 
EU contribution for the specific application for support accepted for funding (40% 
for the application in question)” ’. 
GC filed submissions to contest the partial admissibility of the application in 
relation to the objection detailed above under b) […]. 
By subsequent Memorandum No 1564746 of 21 December 2022 the Region 
provided notice, in accordance with Article 10-bis of legge 241/1990 (Law 
No 241/1990), of the initiation of the procedure for the partial revocation of the 
aid granted by Order No 57/PSD of 15 February 2021, as amended by Order 
No 292/AGM of 1 July 2022, for aid application No 15670012135, and the partial 
recovery of EUR 92 185.82 of the advance already paid […]. 
[…] [proceedings] 
By decreto n. 20 del 27 gennaio 2023 (Order No 20 of 27 January 2023) the 
Marche Region stipulated that it: 
‘- declares that balance payment application No 15680008404 for the company 
GC […] relating to aid application No 15670012135 submitted under the call for 
proposals for the Investment measure (under Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1308/2013) approved for the year 2020/2021 by Order No 253/PSD of 
14 October 2020, as amended, is partially eligible for an expenditure of 
EUR 83 665.52, to which the total contribution of EUR 33 466.21 corresponds, 
due to the ineligibility of certain expenses both because they were incurred before 
the variant application was submitted through the SIAN portal and because they 
exceeded the maximum percentage of aid that can be granted as laid down in 
paragraph 5.4.1 of the call for proposals; 
- therefore establishes the partial revocation, in an amount of 
EUR 123 351.73, of the aid amount of EUR 156 817.94 granted for application 
No 15670012135 to the company GC […] by Order No 57/PSD of 15 February 
2021, as last amended by Order No 292/AGM of 1 July 2022 approving the 
variant; 
- […] consequently […], [the] contribution […] is therefore equal to 
EUR 33 466.21; 
- consequently, initiates a partial recovery procedure – for the amount of 
EUR 92 185.82 – as the difference between the advance payment made to the 
company GC […] by the AGEA payments agency in relation to the request for 
advance payment No 15680000328 and the total contribution payable in relation 
to the request for balance payment No 15680008404; 
REGIONE MARCHE 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
- asks the company GC […] to repay the sum of EUR 92 185.82 as 
determined above; 
- having taken note of the provisions of Article 3(3) of decreto del Ministro 
delle Politiche agricole alimentari e forestali 28 maggio 2021 n. 249006 (Decree 
No 249006 of the Minister of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies of 28 May 
2021) and having regard to Operating Instructions No 46/2022 (paragraph 5) 
issued by the AGEA payments agency, will not apply to the company GC […] the 
penalty relating to exclusion from the measure laid down in Article 6(2)(a) of 
decreto del Ministro delle Politiche agricole alimentari e forestali 14 febbraio 
2017 n. 911 (Decree No 911 of the Minister for Agricultural, Food and Forestry 
Policies of 14 February 2017), as amended’. (Exhibit 11, applicant’s trial bundle). 
At the same time, the Region[,] on the assumption that the advance payment of 
EUR 125 652.03 received by GC was greater than the amount of the contribution 
actually eligible, which was EUR 33 466.21, requested the repayment of the sum 
of EUR 92 185.82 […]. 
On 1 March 2023 the applicant voluntarily repaid the sum, expressly reserving the 
right to take all appropriate legal steps to protect its rights […]. 
6 It is very clear from that reconstruction of events that the Marche Region’s 
decision is based on the assumption that the EU contribution for the wine CMO 
measure must be combined with tax credits only up to the amount of the 
maximum [European Union] contribution for the specific application for support 
eligible for funding (in the present case 40% under Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1308/2013). 
According to the applicant, the Region’s interpretation is incorrect on the basis 
that: 
- Article 1(192) of Law No 160 of 27 December 2019 (the 2020 Budget Law) 
established that ‘the tax credit does not contribute to the formation of income or 
the taxable base for the regional tax on production activities and does not count 
for the purposes of the ratio referred to in Articles 61 and 109(5) of the testo unico 
di cui al decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 22 dicembre 1986, n. 917 
(Consolidated Text of Presidential Decree No 917 of 22 December 1986). The tax 
credit may be combined with other concessions covering the same costs, provided 
that such combination – taking into account also the fact that it does not contribute 
to the formation of income or of the taxable base for the regional tax on 
production activities referred to in the preceding sentence – does not result in the 
cost incurred being exceeded’; 
- by virtue of that legislative provision, a tax credit should be deemed to be 
freely accumulable with other concessions intended to cover the same costs and, 
therefore, also with the measure set out in the notice in question, subject only to 
the express restriction that the cost incurred not be exceeded, since no further 
and/or different ‘limitations’ on combination of such payments can be identified; 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 6. 2024 – CASE C-497/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
- a tax credit is an instrument of general taxation which, inter alia, is quite 
different from State aid[,] and therefore[,] if there had been any intention on the 
part of the legislature to limit in any other way its being combined with support 
measures qualifying as State aid, this would undoubtedly have been provided for 
in the legislation, as has already happened in the past for the tax credit for 
investments in the south of Italy governed by Article 1(102) of the legge del 
28 dicembre 2015 (Law of 28 December 2015). 
7 The Marche Region, on the other hand, to support the argument that tax credits 
and EU contributions can be combined up to the amount of the maximum 
contribution [from the European Union], pointed out that: 
- Article 50(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 introduces the maximum aid 
rates concerning the eligible investment costs for the NSPWS-CMO, stating that 
‘the following maximum aid rates concerning the eligible investment costs shall 
apply to the Union contribution … b) 40% in regions other than less developed 
regions’; 
- in its opinion [ARES (2020)6839797] of 17 November 2020, the European 
Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 
clarified that ‘notwithstanding the fact that, in the context of State aid, tax credits 
are conceived by national authorities as non-aid (and thus covering all sectors, all 
undertakings and the entire territory, with no investment threshold or ceiling), it is 
understood that they provide public support to beneficiaries by specifically 
exempting them from part of the normal tax burden. Therefore, on the basis of the 
information available and the facts described in your request, following our 
analysis, we consider that Rural Development Programme (RDP) support, for the 
same eligible expenses, can be granted in combination with tax credits, but the 
combined support must remain within the limits set by Annex II to Regulation 
(EU) No 1305/2013)’ (Exhibit  18, defendant’s trial bundle); 
- this principle was reaffirmed by Janusz Wojciechowski, who replied on 
behalf of the European Commission in Note IT E-004013/2021 of 14 October 
2021 that ‘support from the RDP for the same eligible costs may be granted in 
combination with tax credits, but must remain within the limits set out in Annex II 
to Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013’ (Exhibit 19, defendant’s trial bundle); 
- the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies, in response to a specific 
question formulated by the Marche Region, confirmed that the abovementioned 
combination limit also applies to the investment measure under Article 50 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, noting that ‘the European Commission, in Letter 
No ARES (2020)6839797 of 17 November 2020, which was widely disseminated, 
specified that the combination of tax credits with EU contributions is permitted in 
compliance with the maximum percentage established for such EU contributions. 
In this specific case, this assumption implies that what is disbursed by way of tax 
credit [in] combination with the EU contribution must not exceed the maximum 
limit of the percentage of contribution envisaged for support under the Investment 
REGIONE MARCHE 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
measure, broken down according to the classification of the Region and by type of 
enterprise (micro, small or medium-sized enterprises – intermediate enterprises – 
large enterprises)’ […]. 
8 The interpretation provided by the Marche Region appears, in the view of the 
court, to be a viable solution if attention is focused on the fact that a tax credit is, 
in any event, a form of public support that reduces the overall cost of an 
investment by means of a reduction in the tax burden, so that that benefit could 
fall within the maximum rates of support for investment costs laid down by 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, given that otherwise the same cost of an 
intervention could be reimbursed twice by means of public financing sources, 
even of different kinds, in breach of the prohibition on double financing laid down 
by the European legislation. 
However, the court is well aware that the line of argument offered by the applicant 
is also tenable, given that a tax credit, being a general taxation instrument, cannot 
be categorised in the strict sense as State aid, and therefore might not fall within 
the maximum limit laid down in Article 50 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 
In this regard, it should be recalled that under Article 107 TFEU, financial support 
measures granted through public resources that could confer an economic 
advantage on certain undertakings and affect competition are in principle 
incompatible with EU law. That rule itself provides for certain exceptions, 
according to which, in essence, a measure with the characteristics of aid may be 
compatible with Union law if it pursues clearly defined objectives of general 
interest (Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU). 
The tax credit referred to in Article 1(192) of Law No 160 of 27 December 2019 
constitutes a general measure that provides benefits applicable to undertakings in 
general and, therefore, because it does not favour certain undertakings or certain 
production activities, it might not qualify as state aid and, therefore, might not 
contribute to a prohibited combination. Conversely, such a credit should be 
regarded as an instrument making it possible to create a synergy between different 
forms of public support for an intervention, which would thus be added together to 
cover different parts of a project/investment and, therefore, should not be included 
in the maximum limit provided for by Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1308/2013. 
The letter of [European Union] law, therefore, can be considered compatible with 
both interpretative solutions. 
9 We therefore believe the Marche Region makes a valid request in terms of 
submitting a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance 
with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for a 
preliminary ruling as to whether Article 50(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, 
in so far as it establishes that ‘the following maximum aid rates concerning the 
eligible investment costs shall apply to the Union contribution … (b) 40% in 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 6. 2024 – CASE C-497/24 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
regions other than less developed regions’, also includes tax credits and, therefore, 
whether tax credits should be equated with any further EU aid received by the 
recipient in the calculation of the 40% limit. 
The interpretation of the provision to which the question seeks an answer 
constitutes a preliminary question with respect to the thema decidendum in that, if 
the Marche Region’s interpretation is correct, the application should be held to be 
unfounded, whereas, if not, GC’s right to obtain the full amount initially awarded 
by the Marche Region should be recognised. 
10 […] 
[…] [passage concerning the stay of proceedings] The resolution of the question 
referred under Article 267 TFEU is decisive for how the case is decided as a 
whole, and the present case must therefore obviously be stayed until the Court of 
Justice’s ruling. 
ON THOSE GROUNDS. 
The District Court of Ancona […] having regard to Article 267 TFEU: 
requests that the Court of Justice of the European Union give a preliminary ruling 
on the following question of interpretation of European Union law: ‘Does 
Article 50(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in so far as it establishes that “the 
following maximum aid rates concerning the eligible investment costs shall apply 
to the Union contribution … (b) 40% in regions other than less developed 
regions”, also include tax credits and, therefore, should tax credits be equated with 
any further EU aid received by the recipient in the calculation of the 40% limit?’. 
[…] [proceedings] 
[…] [proceedings] 
Ancona, 27 June 2024 
[…]