Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — La Gazza s.c.r.l. and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto
(Case C-217/18)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Consiglio di Stato
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: La Gazza s.c.r.l., Umberto Bernardi, Giovanni Bressan, Bruno Ceccato, Alessandro Cerbaro, Virgilio Cerbaro, Alessandro Conte, Antonio Costa, Maurizio Dalla Pria, Daniele Donà, Fausto Guidolin, Gianni Mancon, Claudio Meneghini, Antonio Pesce, Dario Poli, Rino Salvalaggio, Luciano Simioni, Tiziano Sperotto, Armando Tollio, Marco Toson, Silvano Marcon, Lorella Cusinato, Federica Marcon, Eleonora Marcon, Caterina Marcon, Azienda agricola Bacchin Fratelli, Baldisseri Giancarlo e Mario s.s., Azienda agricola Ballardin Bortolino e Giuseppe, Facchinello Egidio e Giuseppe s.s., Azienda agricola Marchioron Fratelli di Marchioron Maurizio e Giuliano, Marchioron Ruggero e Massimo s.s., Azienda agricola Milan di Milan Mauro e Maurizio s.s., Azienda agricola Pettenuzzo Luciano e Aurelio s.s., Azienda agricola Stragliotto di Stragliotto Giovanni & c. s.s., Azienda agricola Todescato Giuseppe e Maurizio s.s., Azienda agricola Toffan Piermaria e Antonio s.s.
Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto
Questions referred
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?
In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law, and in particular the general principle of the 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 who 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?
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, approved by the Italian Republic, 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).