Joined Cases C-187/12 to C-189/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA, Italia Zuccheri SpA, Co.Pro.B. — Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli Soc. coop. Agricola, Eridania Sadam SpA v AGEA — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali (Request for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 — Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 — Agriculture — Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry — Conditions for granting restructuring aid — Concepts of ‘production facilities’ and ‘full dismantling’ )
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural production policy, aid for restructuring, sugar








C_2014009EN.01000702.xml










11.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/7





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA, Italia Zuccheri SpA, Co.Pro.B. — Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli Soc. coop. Agricola, Eridania Sadam SpA v AGEA — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali
(Joined Cases C-187/12 to C-189/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 - Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 - Agriculture - Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry - Conditions for granting restructuring aid - Concepts of ‘production facilities’ and ‘full dismantling’)
2014/C 9/10
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA, Italia Zuccheri SpA, Co.Pro.B. — Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli Soc. coop. Agricola, Eridania Sadam SpA

Respondents: AGEA — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 320/2006 (OJ 2006 L 176, p. 32) — Conditions for granting the full amount of aid — Concepts of ‘production facilities’ and ‘full dismantling’ — Whether it is possible for the full amount of aid to be granted for sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup factories in the event that they retain facilities which are not connected with the production of those products, but are used for other products

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of those articles, the concept of ‘production facilities’ includes silos intended to store the aid beneficiary’s sugar, irrespective of whether they are employed for other purposes. Silos used only to store sugar, produced under quota, from other producers or bought from those producers, or those silos used only for packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it are not included within that concept. It is for the national court to carry out such an assessment, on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the technical characteristics of the silos concerned or how they are actually used.










2.


Consideration of the third and fourth questions in Case C-188/12 and the second and third questions in Case C-189/12 has not raised any factor liable to affect the validity of Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 320/2006 and Article 4 of Regulation No 968/2006.






(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.