25

It was in those circumstances that the Corte suprema di cassazione decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is the statute-based agreement between the State administrative authorities and the agricultural cooperatives (an agreement under which arose a claim that was subsequently assigned by the cooperatives to the Federconsorzi and, in turn, to the latter’s creditors in the context of insolvency proceedings) for the supply and distribution of agricultural products, as established by Legislative Decree No 169 of 23 January 1948 and Law No 1294 of 22 December 1957, covered by the definition of a commercial transaction, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 2000/35 and Article 2 of Directive 2011/7? (2) If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, do the transposition requirements of Directive 2000/35 (Article 6(2)) and Directive 2011/7 (Article 12(3)), under which it is possible to maintain in force provisions which are more favourable, mean that it is not possible to alter for the worse, or indeed to exclude, the late-payment interest rate applicable to agreements that were already in existence when the directives entered into force? (3) If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must the obligation not to alter for the worse the late-payment interest rate applicable to agreements that were already in existence be construed as imposing — as regards a legislative measure governing interest, which provides, up to a certain point (in the present case, from 31 January 1982 to 31 December 1995), for the application of a non-statutory rate and capitalisation, even on an annual basis and not six-monthly, as claimed by the creditor, and, after that point, only for the payment of statutory interest — a set of rules which, in view of the particular circumstances of the present dispute …, is not necessarily unfavourable to the creditor? (4) In so far as Directive 2000/35 and Directive 2011/7 provide, in Articles 3(3) and 7 respectively, in relation to the prohibition of the abuse of freedom of contract to the disadvantage of the creditor, that unfair contractual terms and practices are invalid, do the transposition requirements of those directives (Articles 6 and 12, respectively) have the effect of precluding the State from adopting measures which, as regards agreements to which the State is a party and which were in existence at the time the directives entered into force, exclude late-payment interest? (5) If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, does the prohibition on intervening in agreements that are already in existence and to which the State is a party by adopting measures which preclude late-payment interest impose — as regards a legislative measure governing interest, which provides, up to a certain point (in the present case, from 31 January 1982 to 31 December 1995), for the application of a non-statutory rate and capitalisation, even on an annual basis and not six-monthly, as claimed by the creditor, and, after that point, only for the payment of statutory interest — a set of rules which, in view of the particular circumstances of the present dispute, is not necessarily unfavourable to the creditor?’