European Commission v Italian Republic.
Date: 2018-01-24
33


The Commission takes the view that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation to allocate and recover in full with due diligence and speed the additional levy between the producers that have contributed to each overrun of the national reference quantities. In that regard, the Commission relies, in particular, on the case-law from the judgment of 21 January 1999, Germany v Commission (C‑54/95, EU:C:1999:11, paragraph 177), according to which it is incumbent on the Member States, by virtue of the obligation of general diligence laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, to recover promptly the sums due by way of the additional levy.
40


It should be recalled that, in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation No 3950/92, the additional levy established by Article 1 of that regulation is to be allocated among the producers who contributed to the overrun of the reference quantities. Such a distribution of the additional levy is also provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1788/2003 and in Articles 79, 80 and 83 of Regulation No 1234/2007.
42


In that context, according to well-established case-law, it is incumbent on the Member States, by virtue of the obligation of general diligence laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, such as it specified by the relevant EU regulations, to recover promptly the sums due by way of the additional levy. With the passage of time, division and recovery of the additional levy is likely to become complicated or impossible for reasons such as the fact that undertakings may have ceased trading or accounting documents may have been lost (see, to that effect, judgments of 11 October 1990, Italy v Commission, C‑34/89, EU:C:1990:353, paragraph 12, and of 21 January 1999, Germany v Commission, C‑54/95, EU:C:1999:11, paragraph 177).
43


Moreover, following settled case-law of the Court relating to the burden of proof in proceedings for failure to fulfil an obligation under Article 258 TFEU, it is for the Commission to determine whether the obligation has not been fulfilled. It is therefore for the Commission to place before the Court all the information required to enable the Court to establish that the obligation has not been fulfilled (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 January 2016, Commission v Portugal, C‑398/14, EU:C:2016:61, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).
44


Where the Commission has adduced sufficient evidence of certain matters in the territory of the defendant Member State, it is incumbent on the latter to challenge in substance and in detail the information produced and the inferences drawn (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 January 2016, Commission v Portugal, C‑398/14, EU:C:2016:61, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).
56


In that respect, it should be recalled that, even assuming that the implementation of EU rules on the milk levy has led to significant difficulties at the national level, the fact remains that, as the Court has repeatedly held, a Member State cannot plead practices or situations prevailing in its domestic legal order to justify failure to observe obligations arising under EU law (see, in particular, judgment of 2 March 2017, Commission v Greece, C‑160/16, not published, EU:C:2017:161, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited).
62


Such an assessment is all the more compelling since the Italian Republic’s argument ultimately amounts to disregarding the purpose of the additional levy consisting in obliging milk producers to observe the reference quantities allocated to them (judgment of 25 March 2004, Cooperativa Lattepiù and Others, C‑231/00, C‑303/00 and C‑451/00, EU:C:2004:178, paragraph 75).