Case C-337/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 May 2018 — Via Lattea Scrl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 May 2018 — Via Lattea Scrl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-337/18)

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Via Lattea Scrl, Alba Gilberto, Antonio Barausse, Gabriele Barausse, Azienda Agricola Benvegnù Gianni Battista e Giangaetano s.s., Domenico Brogliato s.s., Cesare Filippi, Michele Filippi, Fontana Fidenzio e Fabrizio s.s., Giovanni Gastaldello, Tiziano Giaretta, Azienda Agricola Guadagnin Gianni ed Emanuele s.s., Il Moretto di Martinazza Laura s.s., Marini Alessandro e Domenico s.s., Azienda Agricola Milan Sergio & C. s.s., Matteo Mosele, Luciano Mosele, Ennio Mosele, Renato Munaretto, Azienda Agricola Pain di Gazzola Luigi, Azienda Agricola Parise Luigi, Angelo, Francesco e Giancarlo, Sillo Zefferino Maurizio s.s., Storti Danilo e Nicoletta s.s., Tosatto Paolo e Federico s.s., Vivaldo Emilio e Pierino s.s., Giuseppe Zanettin

Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

Questions referred

1. In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law be interpreted to the effect that the consequence of the conflict of a legislative provision of a Member State with the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 ( 1 ) is that producers are not obliged to pay the additional levy if the conditions laid down by that Regulation are met?

2. In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law and, in particular, the general principle of protection of legitimate expectations, be interpreted as meaning that the expectations of persons who have performed an obligation laid down by a Member State and have benefited from the effects associated with performance of that obligation may not be protected, if that obligation has proved to be in conflict with EU law?

3. In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, do Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 ( 2 ) of 9 July 2001 and the EU concept of ‘priority category’ preclude a provision of a Member State, such as Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No 157/2004, adopted by the Republic of Italy, which lays down varying methods for refunding an additional levy that has been over-charged, drawing a distinction, in terms of timetables and methods of repayment, between producers who have relied upon due compliance with a national provision that has proved to be in conflict with EU law and producers who have not complied with such a provision?

( 1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1).

( 2 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 19).