Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62018CN0218

    Case C-218/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Latte Più Srl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

    OJ C 240, 9.7.2018, p. 21–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    26/03/2018
    Date lodged:
    26/03/2018
    Author:
    Court of Justice
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    Italian
    Type of procedure:
    Reference for a preliminary ruling
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    • Submits a preliminary question about 31992R3950 article 2 paragraph 2 L 3
    • Submits a preliminary question about 32001R1392 article 9
    Link
    201806220221970362018/C 240/242182018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180326212221

    Case C-218/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Latte Più Srl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

    Top

    C2402018EN2110120180326EN0024211222

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Latte Più Srl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

    (Case C-218/18)

    2018/C 240/24Language of the case: Italian

    Referring court

    Consiglio di Stato

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Appellants: Latte Più Srl, Azienda agricola Benedetti Pietro e Angelo s.s., Azienda agricola Bertoldo Leandro e Ferruccio s.s., Sila di Bettinardi Virgilio e Adriano s.s., Bonora Delis, Capparotto Giampaolo e Lorenzino s.s., Cristofori Alessandra, Cunico Antonio, Dal Degan Santo e Giovanni, Dalle Palle Silvano e Munari Teresa, Dalle Palle Tiziano, Fontana Luca, Gonzo Dino e Stefano s.s., Guarato Giuseppe, Guerra Giuseppe, Magrin Stefano e Renato s.s., Marcolin Graziano, Marin Daniele, Gabriele e Graziano s.s., Azienda agricola Mascot di Pilotto Bortolo e figli s.s., Azienda agricola 2000 di Mastrotto Giuseppe, Matteazzi Mario, Mazzaron Roberto, Pozzan Michele e Luca, Radin Alessandro, Raffaello Carlo e fratelli s.s., Azienda agricola Rodighiero Elena di Bartolomei Roberto e Michele s.s., Sambugaro Andrea, Scuccato Gervasio, Serafini Candida, Toffanin Giovanni e Mauro s.s., Trevisan Francesco, Zanettin Gianfranco e Giampietro s.s.

    Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (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 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?

    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 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?

    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, 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).

    Top