Ambito territoriale di caccia Ancona 2 v Azienda Agricola Camarzano di RK (C-615/24)

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber)15 January 2026^note(Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Agricultural sector — Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 — De minimis aid — Monitoring — Member State providing for the grant and the payment of de minimis aid without requiring a specific declaration from the applicant undertaking as to the amount and nature of any other State aid received during a period of three fiscal years — Production of self-certification relating to such aid)In Case C‑615/24,REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), made by decision of 19 September 2024, received at the Court on 20 September 2024, in the proceedingsAmbito territoriale di caccia Ancona 2vAzienda Agricola Camarzano di RK,THE COURT (Seventh Chamber),composed of F. Schalin (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Gavalec and Z. Csehi, Judges,Advocate General: A. Rantos,Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,having regard to the written procedure,after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:– the Ambito territoriale di caccia Ancona 2, by M. Fioretti, avvocato,– the Italian Government, by S. Fiorentino, acting as Agent, and L. Vignato, avvocato dello Stato, and P. Passolunghi, procuratore dello Stato,– the Bulgarian Government, by T. Mitova and R. Stoyanov, acting as Agents,– the European Commission, by I. Georgiopoulos and C. Molinari, acting as Agents,having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,gives the following

Judgment

1This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3 and Article 6(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector (OJ 2013 L 352, p. 9).

2The request has been made in proceedings between Azienda Agricola Camarzano di RK (‘Azienda Agricola’), an agricultural holding, and Ambito territoriale di caccia Ancona 2 (Territorial Hunting Area Ancona 2, Italy) (‘the ATC’) concerning the request for compensation for damage caused by wild fauna to Azienda Agricola’s organic durum wheat crops in 2014.

Legal context

3Recitals 1, 20 and 21 of Regulation No 1408/2013 are worded as follows:(1) State funding meeting the criteria in Article 107(1) of the Treaty constitutes State aid and requires notification to the [European] Commission by virtue of Article 108(3) of the Treaty. However, under Article 109 of the Treaty, the Council [of the European Union] may determine categories of aid that are exempted from this notification requirement. In accordance with Article 108(4) of the Treaty, the Commission may adopt regulations relating to those categories of State aid. By virtue of [Council] Regulation (EC) No 994/98 [of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles [107 and 108 TFEU] to certain categories of horizontal State aid (OJ 1998 L 142, p. 1)], the Council decided, in accordance with Article 109 of the Treaty, that de minimis aid could constitute one such category. On that basis, de minimis aid, being aid granted to a single undertaking over a given period of time that does not exceed a certain fixed amount, is deemed not to meet all the criteria laid down in Article 107(1) of the Treaty and is therefore not subject to the notification procedure.…(20) … when granting a de minimis aid, Member States should inform the undertaking concerned of the amount of de minimis aid granted and of its de minimis character and should make express reference to this Regulation. Member States should be required to monitor aid granted to ensure the relevant ceilings are not exceeded and the cumulation rules are complied with. To comply with that obligation, before granting such aid, the Member State concerned should obtain from the undertaking a declaration about other de minimis aid covered by this Regulation or by other de minimis regulations received during the fiscal year concerned and the previous 2 fiscal years. Alternatively it should be possible for Member States to set up a central register with complete information on de minimis aid granted and check that any new grant of aid does not exceed the relevant ceiling.(21) Before granting any new de minimis aid each Member State should verify that neither the de minimis ceiling nor the national cap will be exceeded in that Member State by the new de minimis aid and that the other conditions of this Regulation are complied with.’

4Article 3 of that regulation, entitled ‘De minimis aid’, provides:1. Aid measures shall be deemed not to meet all the criteria in Article 107(1) of the Treaty, and shall therefore be exempt from the notification requirement in Article 108(3) of the Treaty, if they fulfil the conditions laid down in this Regulation.2. The total amount of de minimis aid granted per Member State to a single undertaking shall not exceed EUR 15000 over any period of 3 fiscal years.3. The cumulative amount of de minimis aid granted per Member State to undertakings active in the primary production of agricultural products over any period of 3 fiscal years shall not exceed the national cap set out in the Annex.4. De minimis aid shall be deemed granted at the moment the legal right to receive the aid is conferred on the undertaking under the applicable national legal regime, irrespective of the date of payment of the de minimis aid to the undertaking.…7. Where the ceiling laid down in paragraph 2 or the national cap referred to in paragraph 3 would be exceeded by the grant of new de minimis aid, none of that new aid may benefit from this Regulation.…’

5Article 6 of Regulation No 1408/2013, entitled ‘Monitoring’, provides:1. Where a Member State intends to grant de minimis aid in accordance with this Regulation to an undertaking, it shall inform that undertaking in writing of the prospective amount of the aid expressed as a gross grant equivalent and of its de minimis character, making express reference to this Regulation and citing its title and publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Union. … Before granting the aid, the Member State shall obtain a declaration from the undertaking concerned, in written or electronic form, about any other de minimis aid received to which this Regulation or other de minimis regulations apply during the previous 2 fiscal years and the current fiscal year.2. Where a Member State has set up a central register of de minimis aid containing complete information on all de minimis aid granted by any authority within that Member State, paragraph 1 shall cease to apply from the moment the register covers a period of 3 fiscal years.3. A Member State shall grant new de minimis aid in accordance with this Regulation only after having checked that this will not raise the total amount of de minimis aid granted to the undertaking concerned to a level above the ceiling laid down in Article 3(2) and the national cap referred to in Article 3(3) and that all the conditions laid down in this Regulation are complied with.…’

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

6On 28 June 2014, Azienda Agricola submitted to the ATC, using the specific form made available by the ATC, an urgent request for an expert’s report for the purposes of compensation for damage caused by wild fauna to agricultural crops, pursuant to Article 34 of the legge della Regione Marche n. 7 – Norme per la protezione della fauna selvatica e per la tutela dell’equilibrio ambientale e disciplina dell’attività venatoria) (Law No 7 of the Marche Region concerning standards for the protection of wild fauna and for the protection of environmental balance and regulation of hunting activity) of 5 January 1995.

7On 4 July 2014, an agronomic expert, instructed by the ATC, carried out an on-site inspection and found that Azienda Agricola had suffered damage in the amount of EUR 1000 which was caused by wild fauna.

8Despite the findings of that expert, Azienda Agricola did not receive any compensation and therefore sent a formal notice to the ATC in order to obtain payment to that effect. The ATC stated that it could not pay the compensation in the short term, since the Regione Marche (Marche Region, Italy) had not given it the necessary financial funds, but did not inform Azienda Agricola, at that time, that the compensation requested was de minimis in nature or ask it to declare whether it had already received any other de minimis aid during the current fiscal year and the two previous fiscal years.

9On 19 January 2016, Azienda Agricola brought an action before the Giudice di pace di Jesi (Magistrate, Jesi, Italy) seeking that the ATC be ordered to pay Azienda Agricola the compensation in question. Since the Giudice di pace di Jesi (Magistrate, Jesi) granted Azienda Agricola’s request through an immediately enforceable order, the ATC brought an action against that order, asserting, inter alia, that Azienda Agricola was not entitled to compensation, on account of its failure to declare whether it had already received other de minimis aid during the current fiscal year and the two previous fiscal years.

10The Giudice di pace di Jesi (Magistrate, Jesi) upheld that order by rejecting the opposition filed by the ATC. He considered that obtaining a declaration from the undertaking as to whether it had already received other de minimis aid during the current fiscal year and the two previous fiscal years was not a necessary condition for the payment of aid, since compliance with the de minimis aid cumulation rules, provided for by Regulation No 1408/2013, could also have been detected during the monitoring of that aid by means of a special register established by the State.

11Hearing an appeal brought by the ATC, the Tribunale di Ancona (District Court, Ancona, Italy) upheld the judgment of the Giudice di pace di Jesi (Magistrate, Jesi) in ruling, inter alia, that Azienda Agricola could not be regarded as being bound by the procedure laid down in Article 6 of Regulation No 1408/2013, since the regional legislation in force on the date of the application for compensation lodged by Azienda Agricola did not provide for the submission of a declaration concerning whether it had already received other de minimis aid during the current fiscal year and the two previous fiscal years. According to that court, the divergence between the provisions of the EU legislation and the regional legislation had given rise to a situation of objective and manifest uncertainty.

12The ATC then brought an appeal on a point of law, before the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), which is the referring court, against the judgment of the Tribunale di Ancona (District Court, Ancona), seeking that that judgment be set aside. To that effect, it claimed that that court had infringed EU State aid law by failing to ensure the coordination between rules of law according to their hierarchy, since the principles affirmed by an EU regulation, which is immediately applicable, must take priority over any contrary provision of national law.

13For its part, Azienda Agricola maintains that it acted in compliance with the formalities imposed by the regional legislation and that the failure to apply Regulation No 1408/2013 was attributable to the ATC, which had not carried out any monitoring activity and had never asked it to produce a self-certification relating to any de minimis aid received in the three years preceding its application for compensation.

14In that context, the referring court expresses its doubts concerning the interpretation of Regulation No 1408/2013. It wonders whether, in 2014, in order to be eligible for compensation for damage caused by wild fauna to agricultural crops, Azienda Agricola was required, failing which its application for compensation would be rejected, to submit ‘self-certification’ concerning de minimis aid received during previous fiscal periods. In that regard, it asks what conclusions should be drawn from the fact that, first, the ATC had not asked Azienda Agricola to provide such a document and that, second, it had been established, at the time of subsequent monitoring, that the maximum threshold provided for by that regulation had not been exceeded.

15In those circumstances, the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:(1) Must [Article 3 and Article 6(1) and (2)] of Regulation No 1408/2013, read together, be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing for the grant of de minimis State aid for agriculture and granting it, during the first three years following the setting up of the databases at national level and, in any event, until such time as those databases have been fully and completely maintained, in the absence of a specific declaration by the applicant undertaking as to the amount and nature of other State aid received during the three-year fiscal period concerned?(2) In particular, during that period, does the issue of a self-certified declaration relating to any subsidies received in the previous three years constitute an essential precondition for the submission of the application for compensation and for there to be a right to receive State aid, or may such [self-certified declaration] lawfully take place only at the monitoring stage and, thus, after the State aid has been received?’

Consideration of the questions referred

The first question

16By its first question, the referring court seeks an interpretation of Article 3 and Article 6(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1408/2013.

17In that regard, it should be noted that, in relation to monitoring the de minimis character of aid, Article 6(2) of that regulation refers to circumstances in which a Member State has set up a central register of de minimis aid containing complete information on all de minimis aid granted by any authority within that Member State. As is apparent from the order for reference, the central register of aid was not set up by the Italian Republic until 12 August 2017, that is to say, on a date subsequent to the application for aid at issue in the main proceedings with the result that the question of the application and interpretation of that provision does not arise in the present case.

18It should also be recalled that the Court has consistently held that the fact that a question submitted by the referring court refers only to certain provisions of EU law does not mean that the Court may not provide the national court with all the guidance on points of interpretation that may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before it, whether or not that court has referred to those points in its questions. It is, in this regard, for the Court to extract from all the information provided by the referring court, in particular from the grounds of the decision to make the reference, the points of EU law which require interpretation in view of the subject matter of the dispute (judgment of 7 March 2017, X and X, C‑638/16 PPU, EU:C:2017:173, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).

19In view of the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings and the questions raised by the referring court, it is necessary, in order to give a useful answer, to provide an interpretation of Article 6(3) of Regulation No 1408/2013 according to which a Member State is to grant new de minimis aid in accordance with that regulation only after having checked that this will not raise the total amount of de minimis aid granted to the undertaking concerned to a level above the ceiling laid down in Article 3(2) of that regulation and the national cap referred to in Article 3(3) of that regulation and that all the conditions laid down therein are complied with.

20Therefore, it must be held that by its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1408/2013 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for the grant and payment of de minimis aid for agriculture, during the first three years following the creation of a central register of aid at national level, without requiring a specific declaration from the undertaking applying for the aid as to the amount and nature of other State aid that it received during the current fiscal year and the two previous fiscal years.

21It should be noted, first, that Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation No 1408/2013 must be placed back in the overall context of that regulation, the purpose of which is to allow derogations, for State aid of a limited amount, from the rule that all aid must, prior to implementation, be notified to the Commission (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 October 2020, INAIL, C‑608/19, EU:C:2020:865, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).

22Furthermore, it must be observed that, given that Regulation No 1408/2013 contains a derogation from the general rule providing for the notification of any new State aid, Articles 3 and 6 of that regulation must be interpreted strictly (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 October 2020, INAIL, C‑608/19, EU:C:2020:865, paragraph 27).

23That interpretation must take into account not only the wording of those provisions, but also the context in which they are set and the objectives pursued by the act of which they form part (judgment of 28 October 2020, INAIL, C‑608/19, EU:C:2020:865, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).

24It is clear from the wording of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/2013 that that regulation applies only if all the conditions set out therein are satisfied. As regards Article 6(3) of that regulation, it follows from the wording of that provision that a Member State is to ensure that the ceiling laid down in Article 3(2) of that regulation is not exceeded before granting de minimis aid.

25It follows that, while the central register referred to in Article 6(2) of Regulation No 1408/2013 has not been operational in the Member State concerned for a period of three fiscal years, the obtaining of the declaration referred to in Article 6(1) of that regulation constitutes, in the context of that regulation, a necessary condition for the grant of new de minimis aid. Such a declaration is essential in that it allows the Member State concerned to check whether the aid applied for falls within the scope of that regulation and, therefore, to determine if the aid is, or is not, exempt from the notification requirement.

26Such an interpretation is also confirmed in the light of the context in which those provisions are set and the objective of Regulation No 1408/2013.

27First, in relation to that context, it is apparent from recitals 20 and 21 of Regulation No 1408/2013 that obtaining the declaration referred to in Article 6(1) of that regulation forms part of the monitoring obligation that is to be fulfilled before the aid in question is granted.

28Second, the objective of Regulation No 1408/2013 is intended to reduce the administrative burden on undertakings, the Commission and the Member States based on the principle that aid in an amount not exceeding the de minimis ceiling does not have any effect on the trade between Member States and is not such as to distort competition (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 October 2020, INAIL, C‑608/19, EU:C:2020:865, paragraph 41).

29In that regard, as is apparent from recital 1 of Regulation No 1408/2013, the reason for the exemption from the State aid notification requirement is the existence of the limited amount of aid that may be granted to a single undertaking over a given period of time pursuant to that regulation. However, in order to benefit from such an exemption, there must first be confirmation that the de minimis ceiling has not been not exceeded over that period of time.

30In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 3 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1408/2013 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for the grant and payment of agricultural de minimis aid before a central register of aid has been fully and comprehensively established at national level, without requiring a specific declaration from the undertaking applying for the aid as to the amount and nature of other State aid that it received during the current fiscal year and the previous two fiscal years.

The second question

31By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1408/2013 must be interpreted as providing that the production of a declaration relating to any aid received during the three-year period preceding the full and comprehensive creation of a central register of aid at national level is an eligibility condition for the submission of the aid application and for the grant of the aid, or if such a declaration may be obtained subsequently and, accordingly, after the receipt of that aid.

32As follows from the examination of the first question, the declaration referred to in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1408/2013 constitutes, as long as that provision has not ceased to apply in accordance with Article 6(2) of that regulation, a condition for the grant of new agricultural de minimis aid, within the meaning of Article 3 and Article 6(3) of that regulation.

33As regards the submission of aid applications and the declaration relating to any aid received previously, it must be pointed out that Regulation No 1408/2013 does not contain any procedural requirement regarding the manner in which, and the date on which, that declaration must be requested or provided. The only requirements in Article 6(1) of that regulation refer to the fact that that declaration must be obtained ‘before granting the aid’ and that it must indicate the aid received by the undertaking concerned during the previous two fiscal years and the current fiscal year.

34However, it must be observed that such requirements concern the applicability of the regime provided for in that regulation, but do not constitute eligibility conditions for the submission of an aid application. Therefore, such a declaration may be produced at a later stage in the administrative procedure relating to the aid application, provided that that declaration, at the request of the Member State concerned, was obtained before the grant of the aid.

35It follows that the submission of the declaration is not an eligibility condition for an aid application. However, in the absence of a central register of de minimis aid covering a period of three fiscal years, that declaration constitutes a condition for the grant and, therefore, the payment of aid, which implies that such a declaration is necessary before the grant of the aid and not afterwards.

36In addition, even though the aid application procedure is in principle governed by national law, it should be borne in mind that it is apparent from Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1408/2013, read in the light of recital 20 of that regulation, that it is for the Member State concerned to obtain the self-certified declaration where that self-certified declaration is necessary in order to be able to check whether the conditions for the application of that regulation are complied with. In that regard, it should again be specified that, where aid is not granted, in particular on account of a lack of a request for such a declaration, the competent authority can retroactively demand that declaration in order to assess whether the aid may still be granted.

37In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 3 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1408/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the production of a declaration relating to any aid received in the three-year period preceding the full and comprehensive creation of a central register of aid at national level is not an eligibility condition for the submission of the aid application, but that such a declaration constitutes a condition for the grant of the aid with the result that it must be obtained by the Member State before the grant of such aid.

Costs

38Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:

1.Article 3 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid in the agriculture sectormust be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for the grant and payment of agricultural de minimis aid before a central register of aid has been fully and comprehensively established at national level, without requiring a specific declaration from the undertaking applying for the aid as to the amount and nature of other State aid that it received during the current fiscal year and the previous two fiscal years;

2.Article 3 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1408/2013must be interpreted as meaning that the production of a declaration relating to any aid received in the three-year period preceding the full and comprehensive creation of a central register of aid at national level is not an eligibility condition for the submission of the aid application, but that such a declaration constitutes a condition for the grant of the aid with the result that it must be obtained by the Member State before the grant of such aid.