Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)
11 December 2025 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 – Support programme in the wine sector – Financing – Article 50 – European Union contribution – Calculation of the maximum aid rate – Inclusion of a tax credit provided for by national legislation )
In Case C‑497/24,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Tribunale ordinario di Ancona (District Court, Ancona, Italy), made by decision of 27 June 2024, received at the Court on 17 July 2024, in the proceedings
GC,
acting in his own name and as owner of the agricultural holding bearing the same name,
v
Regione Marche,
THE COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of F. Schalin, President of the Chamber, M. Gavalec (Rapporteur) and Z. Csehi, Judges,
Advocate General: T. Ćapeta,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
–        GC, acting in his own name and as owner of the agricultural holding bearing the same name, by S. Cianciullo and M. Spinozzi, avvocati,
–        the Regione Marche, by L. Di Ianni, avvocata,
–        the Italian Government, by S. Fiorentino, acting as Agent, and by I. Fresu, procuratore dello Stato, and L. Vignato, avvocato dello Stato,
–        the European Commission, by B. Rechena and P. Rossi, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 50(4) of 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 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).
2        The request has been made in proceedings between GC, acting in his own name and as owner of the agricultural holding bearing the same name, and the Regione Marche (Marche Region, Italy) concerning the lawfulness of a decision to recover EU aid paid under the national wine support programme.
Legal context
European Union law
Regulation No 1308/2013
3        Article 39 of Regulation No 1308/2013, entitled ‘Scope’, provides:
‘This Section lays down the rules governing the attribution of Union funds to Member States and the use of those funds by Member States through five-year national support programmes (“support programmes”) to finance specific support measures to assist the wine sector.’
4        Article 44 of that regulation, entitled ‘General rules concerning support programmes’, provides, in paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof:
‘2.      Union support shall only be granted for eligible expenditure incurred after the submission of the relevant draft support programme.
3.      Member States shall not contribute to the costs of measures financed by the Union under the support programmes.’
5        Article 50 of Regulation No 1308/2013, entitled ‘Investments’, provides, in point (b) of paragraph 4 thereof:
‘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;
…’
6        Under Article 212 of that regulation, entitled ‘National payments related to wine support programmes’:
‘By way of derogation from Article 44(3), Member States may grant national payments in accordance with the Union rules on State aid for the measures referred to in Articles 45, 49 and 50.
The maximum aid rate as laid down in the relevant Union rules on State aid shall apply to the global public financing, including both Union and national funds.’
Regulation (EU) 2021/2117
7        Article 1(8)(e) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2117 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, (EU) No 251/2014 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of aromatised wine products and (EU) No 228/2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 262), provides for the deletion of Articles 29 to 60 of Regulation No 1308/2013.
8        Under the fourth paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation 2021/2117, Article 1(8)(e) thereof is to apply from 1 January 2023.
9        Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation 2021/2117 provides:
‘The support programmes in the wine sector referred to in Article 40 of [Regulation No 1308/2013] shall continue to apply until 15 October 2023. Articles 39 to
54 of [Regulation
No 1308/2013] shall continue to apply after 31 December 2022 as regards:
(a)      expenditure incurred and payments made for operations implemented pursuant to that Regulation before 16 October 2023 within the aid scheme referred to in Articles 39 to
52 of that Regulation.’
Italian law
10      Article 1(185) to (197) of legge n. 160 – Bilancio di previsione dello Stato per l’anno finanziario 2020 e bilancio pluriennale per il triennio 2020-2022 (Law No 160 on the estimated State budget for the 2020 financial year and the multiannual budget for the three-year period 2020-2022) of 27 December 2019 (GURI No 304 of 30 December 2019) (‘the 2020 Finance Law’) provides for a tax credit for undertakings which invest in tangible and intangible capital equipment used for the technological and digital transformation of production processes.
11      Article 1(192) of that law states:
‘The tax credit does not contribute to the formation of income or to the basis of assessment for the regional tax on productive activities and is not relevant for the purposes of the report referred to in Article 61 and Article 109(5) of the [testo unico di cui al decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 22 dicembre 1986, n. 917 (consolidated text referred to by Decree No 917 of the President of the Republic of 22 December 1986)]. The tax credit may be combined with other advantages relating to the same costs, provided that that combination – having regard also to the fact that that credit does not contribute to the formation of income or to the basis of assessment for the regional tax on productive activities referred to in the preceding sentence – does not result in the cost incurred being exceeded.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
12      By decree of 14 October 2020, the Marche Region approved a regional call for projects for the implementation of the ‘Investments’ measure, provided for in Article 50 of Regulation No 1308/2013 for the 2020/2021 marketing year, which is part of the support programme in the wine sector.
13      On 30 November 2020, the wine-growing undertaking GC submitted an application for aid for a project with an estimated total value of EUR 392 662.59. That project provided for interventions aimed, on the one hand, at ensuring high energy efficiency and, on the other, at enhancing innovation and product quality. Those interventions consisted of acquiring new insulated tanks in order to enable automated, remote management of the various stages of winemaking.
14      On 27 May 2021, the Marche Region approved the ranking list of the applications eligible for that support programme, placing GC’s application in second position, which led it to approve the grant of aid in the amount of EUR 157 065.04 in favour of that undertaking. On 13 September 2021, 80% of that amount, namely EUR 125 652.03, was paid by way of an advance to GC; the remaining 20% was to be paid on the date of completion of the project, which was to take place on 15 July 2022.
15      During the implementation of the project, GC submitted an application for amendment involving an adjustment of the total expenditure, which was recalculated to be EUR 392 044.85, so that the amount of the aid was reassessed at EUR 156 817.94, which was approved by the Marche Region on 1 July 2022.
16      Following completion of the project, GC submitted a claim for payment of the balance due for the expenditure declared to have been incurred, which amounted to a total of EUR 389 256.21, that is to say, an amount lower than that approved on 1 July 2022. Accordingly, GC fixed the total amount of aid claimed at EUR 155 702.48, so that the outstanding balance was EUR 30 050.45.
17      Following checks carried out by the Struttura Decentrata Agricoltura di Ascoli Piceno e Fermo (Decentralised Agriculture Structure for Ascoli Piceno and Fermo, Italy), the claim for payment of the balance was found to be partially admissible. That authority found, inter alia, that the investments financed under the project had received a tax credit within the meaning of Article 1(192) of the 2020 Finance Law (‘the tax credit’). Thus, the cumulative collection of the aid from the EU budget and the tax credit exceeded the maximum permissible aid rate referred to in Article 50(4)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013, namely 40% of GC’s investment cost. Consequently, that authority took the view that the amount received by GC
in excess of the maximum authorised amount was not due and had to be recovered.
18      On 21 December 2022, the Marche Region informed GC that it had initiated a procedure for the partial revocation of the aid granted and ordered the partial recovery of the advance paid in an amount of EUR 92 185.82. By decision of 27 January 2023, it requested, inter alia, the reimbursement of that sum.
19      On 1 March 2023, GC reimbursed the sum claimed from it while reserving the right to challenge before the courts the decisions partially revoking the aid and ordering recovery.
20      GC has brought an action before the Tribunal ordinario di Ancona (District Court, Ancona, Italy), which is the referring court. GC has claimed, in essence, that the tax credit could be freely cumulated with other benefits intended to cover the same costs as those covered by that credit and, therefore, also with the aid measure referred to in the regional call for projects in the wine sector, subject only to the condition that the total accumulated benefits did not exceed 100% of the cost incurred. GC has argued that, as a general measure applicable to all undertakings and not constituting State aid, the tax credit should not be taken into account in assessing whether the maximum aid rate provided for in Article 50(4)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013, namely 40%, has been exceeded.
21      The Marche Region, on the contrary, takes the view that the tax credit and the Union support must be cumulated up to the limit of that maximum aid rate. It argues that the opinion of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission expressed in Document Ares (2020)6839797 of 17 November 2020 further confirms that interpretation.
22      In that context, the referring court has doubts as to whether the tax credit and the Union support should be cumulated in order to assess whether the maximum aid rate provided for in Article 50(4)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 has been exceeded. On the one hand, it could be considered that the tax credit constitutes a form of public support which reduces the overall cost of the investment by means of a reduction in the tax burden of the undertaking which bears that cost, with the result that there is a risk that the same investment will be reimbursed twice through public resources. On the other hand, the tax credit could be regarded as a general measure that provides benefits in favour of all undertakings. Thus, as it cannot be classified as State aid, the tax credit cannot contribute to a prohibited accumulation of public resources. On the contrary, that credit makes it possible to create a synergy between different forms of public support for an investment, which would be cumulated to finance different parts of a project or an investment. In that regard, that credit should not be included in the maximum limit provided for in Article 50 of Regulation No 1308/2013.
23      In those circumstances the Tribunale ordinario di Ancona (District Court, Ancona) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Does Article 50(4) of [Regulation 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?’
Consideration of the question referred
24      By its question, the referring court asks whether Article 50(4)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of calculating the maximum aid rate for investments provided for in that provision, account must be taken not only of the Union support paid to a recipient in respect of an investment project, but also of the benefit derived by that recipient from a tax credit provided for by national legislation.
25      As a preliminary point, it should be noted that Article 1(8)(e) of Regulation 2021/2117 deleted Article 50 of Regulation No 1308/2013 with effect from 1 January 2023. However, in accordance with Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation 2021/2117, Article 50 of Regulation No 1308/2013
is to continue to apply to expenditure incurred and payments made for operations implemented pursuant to Regulation No 1308/2013 before 16 October 2023. In that regard, although the request for a preliminary ruling does not specify the exact date on which the investment project at issue in the main proceedings was completed or the date on which GC notified the claim for payment of the balance, there is no doubt that those events took place before 16 October 2023, given that the recovery decision, which was referred to the referring court, is dated 27 January 2023. Consequently, Article 50 of Regulation No 1308/2013 is applicable ratione temporis.
26      In that regard, in accordance with settled case-law, an interpretation of a provision of EU law cannot have the result of depriving the clear and precise wording of that provision of all effectiveness. Thus, where the meaning of a provision of EU law is absolutely plain from its very wording, the Court cannot depart from that interpretation (judgment of 20 September 2022, VD and SR, C‑339/20 and C‑397/20, EU:C:2022:703, paragraph 71 and the case-law cited).
27      In the first place, it is apparent from Article 50(4) of Regulation No 1308/2013 that the maximum aid rates concerning eligible investment costs ‘shall apply to the Union contribution’ and are to amount to 40% in regions other than less developed regions. It is clear from the wording of that provision that it refers only to the ‘Union contribution’ without referring to other contributions, such as a national contribution in the form of a tax credit.
28      In the second place, that interpretation is supported by the context of that provision.
29      First, it should be noted that Title I of Regulation No 1308/2013, entitled ‘Market intervention’, contains Chapter II, entitled ‘Aid schemes’, which contains Section 4, entitled ‘Support programmes in the wine sector’, introduced by Article 39 of that regulation and which includes Article 50 thereof. Article 39
of Regulation No 1308/2013 provides that that section lays down the rules governing the attribution of Union funds to Member States and the use of those funds by those Member States through five-year national support programmes to finance specific support measures to assist the wine sector. It must be noted that Article 39
of that regulation merely limits the rules laid down in that section to the area of the attribution of Union funds to the Member States and to that of the use of those funds by those Member States, without covering national rules intended to allocate financial resources to the wine sector, such as a tax credit.
30      Second, it should be noted that Article 44 of Regulation No 1308/2013, entitled ‘General rules concerning support programmes’, provides, on the one hand, in paragraph 2 thereof, that Union support is only to be granted for eligible expenditure incurred after the submission of the relevant draft support programme and, on the other, in paragraph 3 thereof, that Member States are not to contribute to the cost of measures financed by the Union under the support programmes. Accordingly, Member States are not authorised, in principle, to contribute to the cost of measures financed by the Union, so that, for the purpose of calculating the maximum permissible aid rates in the wine sector referred to in Article 50 of that regulation, only the resources mobilised by the EU budget should be taken into consideration.
31      Third, and as has been indicated by the Commission in its written observations, it is true that Article 44(3) of Regulation No 1308/2013 lays down a rule prohibiting national co-financing of national support programmes in the wine sector. However, that provision must be read in conjunction with Article 212 of that regulation, which introduces a derogation from Article 44(3) thereof, by authorising Member States to grant national payments in accordance with the EU rules on State aid, in favour, inter alia, of the measures referred to in Article 50 of that regulation. Accordingly, the EU legislature has clearly provided that Member States may support projects falling under the ‘Investments’ measure, referred to in Article 50 of Regulation No 1308/2013, in addition to measures financed by the Union, subject to compliance with the applicable EU rules on State aid.
32      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 50(4)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of calculating the maximum aid rate for investments provided for in that provision, account must be taken of the Union support paid to a recipient in respect of an investment project, but not of the benefit derived by that recipient from a tax credit provided for by national legislation.
Costs
33      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 50(4)(b) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of calculating the maximum aid rate for investments provided for in that provision, account must be taken of the European Union support paid to a recipient in respect of an investment project, but not of the benefit derived by that recipient from a tax credit provided for by national legislation.
[Signatures]
*      Language of the case: Italian.