CELEX: 62019CN0464
Language: en
Date: 2019-06-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-464/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Latte Villafranca SCRL, in liquidation and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto

21.10.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 357/7
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Latte Villafranca SCRL, in liquidation and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto
      (Case C-464/19)
      (2019/C 357/10)
      Language of the case: Italian
      
         Referring court
      
      Consiglio di Stato
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicants: Latte Villafranca SCRL, in liquidation, Azienda Agricola Cordioli Cesarino e Noè società semplice, Cordioli Evaristo e Loredano società semplice, DZ, EA, FB
      
         Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the 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 paragraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) is that producers are not obliged to pay the additional levy where 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 that 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).