- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
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
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0464
62019CN0464
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
21.10.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 357/7
(Case C-464/19)
(2019/C 357/10)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
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?
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).
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).