C-294/25

Provisional text JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 26 March 2026 (*) ( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Milk and milk products – Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 – Deliveries made to non-approved purchasers – Article 24(1) – Concept of ‘penalty’ – Additional levy payable by the producer – Levy calculated on the basis of the total quantity of the product delivered – Proportionality – Rights of the defence and right to an effective remedy ) In Case C‑294/25, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), made by decision of 15 April 2025, received at the Court on 17 April 2025, in the proceedings UD, VO, GT and KJ, in their own names and as members of Società Agricola UD e co., BF, in his own name and as owner of the agricultural holding bearing the same name, IJ, BP and LR, in their own names and as members of Azienda agricola IJ, BP e LR s.s. v Agenzia Veneta per i pagamenti in agricoltura (AVEPA), THE COURT (Sixth Chamber), composed of I. Ziemele, President of the Chamber, A. Kumin and M. Bošnjak (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: D. Spielmann, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: –        UD, VO, GT and KJ, in their own names and as members of Società Agricola UD e co., by M. Aldegheri, avvocata, –        BF, in his own name and as owner of the agricultural holding bearing the same name, by M. Aldegheri and E. Ermondi, avvocate, –        IJ, BP and LR, in their own names and as members of Azienda agricola IJ, BP e LR s.s. by M. Aldegheri, avvocata, –        Agenzia Veneta per i pagamenti in agricoltora (AVEPA), by A. Cusin, T. Munari, B. Peagno, G. Quarneti and F. Zanlucchi, avvocati, –        the Italian Government, by S. Fiorentino, acting as Agent, and by G. Rocchitta and L. Vignato, avvocati dello Stato, –        the European Commission, by C. Biz and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following Judgment 1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 13 and Article 14(1) of 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), Article 23 and Article 24(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2004 L 94, p. 22), and the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, equality and non-discrimination. 2        The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, UD, VO, GT and KJ, in their own names and as members of Società Agricola UD e co., BF, in his own name and as owner of the agricultural holding bearing the same name and IJ, BP and LR, in their own names and as members of Azienda agricola IJ, BP e LR s.s. and, on the other hand, the Agenzia Veneta per i pagamenti in agricoltura (AVEPA) (Agency for Payments in Agriculture, Veneto Region, Italy) concerning the imposition of additional levies on quantities of milk delivered by those applicants in the main proceedings to a non-approved purchaser.  Legal context  Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 3        Recitals 3 and 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 123), which was repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1), stated: ‘(3)      The main purpose of the scheme is to reduce the imbalance between supply and demand on the milk and milk products market and the resulting structural surpluses, thereby achieving better market equilibrium. … … (22)      The main purpose of the levy provided for in this Regulation is to regularise and stabilise the market in milk products. …’ 4        Article 1 of Regulation No 1788/2003, headed ‘Scope’, provided: ‘1.      For 11 consecutive periods of twelve months commencing on 1 April 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “twelve-month periods”), a levy is hereby introduced (hereinafter referred to as “the levy”) on quantities of cow’s milk and other milk products marketed during the twelve-month period concerned in excess of the national reference quantities fixed in Annex I. 2.      These quantities shall be divided between producers in accordance with Article 6, distinguishing between deliveries and direct sales as defined in Article 5. Any overrun of the national reference quantity and the resulting levy shall be determined nationally in each Member State, in accordance with Chapter 3 and making a distinction between deliveries and direct sales. …’ 5        Under Article 4 of that regulation, headed ‘Contribution of producers to the levy due’: ‘The levy shall be entirely allocated, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10 and 12, among the producers who have contributed to each of the overruns of the national reference quantities referred to in Article 1(2). Without prejudice to Article 10(3) and Article 12(1), producers shall be liable vis-à-vis the Member State for payment of their contribution to the levy due, calculated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3, for the mere fact of having overrun their available reference quantities.’ 6        Article 22 of that regulation, headed ‘Application of the levy’, stated: ‘The levy shall be considered as intervention to stabilise agricultural markets and shall be applied to financing expenditure in the milk sector.’  Regulation No 1392/2001 7        Article 13 of Regulation No 1392/2001, headed ‘Approval of purchasers’, provided as follows: ‘1.      To be able to operate in the territory of a Member State, purchasers must be approved by that Member State. … 3.      Without prejudice to the penalties laid down now or in the future by the Member State concerned, approval shall be withdrawn where the conditions laid down in paragraph 2(a) and (b) are no longer met. … …’ 8        Article 14 of that regulation, headed ‘Obligations of purchasers and producers’, provided, in paragraph 1 thereof: ‘Producers shall be required to ensure that purchasers to whom they deliver are approved. The Member States may lay down penalties where deliveries are made to non-approved purchasers.’  Regulation No 595/2004 9        Recital 6 of Regulation No 595/2004 reads as follows: ‘It is vital, on the one hand, to check that the data communicated by purchasers and producers are accurate and, on the other hand, to ensure that the burden of the levy actually falls on the producers responsible for the overrun of the national reference quantities. To that end, Member States should play a greater role in the controls and penalties they are required to introduce to ensure that contributions to the payment of the levy are collected correctly. In particular, Member States should draw up a national control plan for each 12-month period on the basis of risk analysis and should carry out controls at farm level, at transport level and at purchaser level with the aim to combat possible irregularities and frauds. It is also necessary to specify the deadlines and number of checks needed to allow verification within a given time limit that the arrangements have been complied with by all the parties involved. Penalties are also needed where those basic requirements are not met.’ 10      Article 23 of that regulation, headed ‘Approval of purchasers’, states: ‘1.      To be able to buy milk from producers and to operate in the territory of a Member State, purchasers must be approved by that Member State. … 3.      Without prejudice to the penalties laid down by the Member State concerned, approval shall be withdrawn where the conditions laid down in paragraph 2(a) and (b) are no longer met. …’ 11      Article 24 of that regulation, headed ‘Obligations of purchasers and producers’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof: ‘Producers shall ensure that purchasers to whom they deliver are approved. The Member States shall lay down penalties where deliveries are made to non-approved purchasers.’ 12      In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 28 and the second paragraph of Article 29 thereof, Regulation No 595/2004 repealed Regulation No 1392/2001 with effect from 1 April 2004.  Italian law 13      Decreto-legge n. 49/2003 – Riforma della normativa in tema di applicazione del prelievo supplementare nel settore del latte e dei prodotti lattiero-caseari (Decree-Law No 49/2003 reforming the rules on the application of the additional levy in the milk and milk products sector) of 28 March 2003 (GURI No 75 of 31 March 2003, p. 4), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘Decree-Law No 49/2003’), seeks to implement the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1392/2001, and subsequently those of Regulation No 595/2004. 14      Article 4 of that decree-law provides, in paragraphs 2 and 4 thereof: ‘2.      Every producer is required to ensure that the purchaser to whom he intends to deliver milk is approved within the meaning of this article; all milk or milk equivalent delivered to a non-approved purchaser shall be subject to an additional levy payable by the producer. … 4.      A purchaser who acts without the approval referred to in this article shall be liable to an administrative penalty equal to the amount of the additional levy on the total quantity of product withdrawn without approval.’  The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling 15      The applicants in the main proceedings, who are members or owners of three agricultural holdings, sold their milk production for the marketing period 2005 to 2006 to Società Cooperativa Latte 2001 Soc. coop. arl. However, that company’s approval to be a purchaser had been withdrawn by decreto n. 1214 del Direttore Generale Agricoltura della Regione Lombardia (Decree No 1214 of the Director-General for Agriculture of the Lombardy Region) of 1 February 2005. 16      Subsequently, having found that, during that marketing period, the applicants had delivered milk to a non-approved purchaser, in infringement of Article 24(1) of Regulation No 595/2004 and Article 4(2) of Decree-Law No 49/2003, AVEPA issued payment orders against them. 17      Since their actions against those orders were, in essence, dismissed at first instance, the applicants in the main proceedings brought an appeal against the judgments in question before the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), which is the referring court. Before the referring court, they claim, inter alia, that the orders which they seek to have annulled should be classified as administrative penalties within the meaning of national law. 18      In that regard, the referring court observes that, for the purpose of implementing the obligation to adopt penalties where deliveries of milk or milk products are made to non-approved purchasers, provided for first of all in Article 14(1) of Regulation No 1392/2001 and then in Article 24(1) of Regulation No 595/2004, the Italian legislature has provided for two different measures. In addition to the administrative penalty to which the purchaser is liable under Article 4(4) of Decree-Law No 49/2003, Article 4(2) of that decree-law provides for an additional levy payable by the producer (‘the measure at issue’). 19      According to the case-law of both the referring court and the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), the measure at issue is not regarded as an administrative penalty in the strict sense, but as a measure to rebalance the market consisting in the full recuperation of the quantity delivered to the non-approved purchaser. However, the applicants in the main proceedings are of the opinion that that measure is incompatible with EU law, which provides for the application of a levy only in respect of quantities of milk exceeding the reference quantities fixed pursuant to Regulation No 1788/2003. 20      In that respect, the referring court considers that the EU legislature has established a ‘dense’ regulatory system as regards the controls and obligations to ensure the functioning of the system for regulating the market in milk and milk products, while leaving the Member States a broad discretion in choosing the consequences in the event of failure to comply with those requirements. The Member States are thus able to impose on producers measures which do not constitute administrative penalties in the strict sense, but rather measures to rebalance the market in response to the requirements of the sector. 21      It is in those circumstances that the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Should [EU] law, in particular [Article] 23 and [Article] 24(1) of Regulation [No 595/2004] – and, before that, [Article] 13 and [Article] 14(1) of Regulation [No 1392/2001] – and the principles of legal certainty, [the protection of] legitimate expectations, proportionality, equality and non-discrimination, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law that, in the event of delivery to a non-approved purchaser, requires that the milk or milk equivalent delivered is subject to an additional levy payable by the producer?’  Consideration of the question referred 22      It should be noted as a preliminary point that, according to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to decide the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 January 2026, Imballaggi Piemontesi, C‑588/24, EU:C:2026:14, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). 23      In that regard, it should be noted, first, that, although the question referred concerns Article 13 and Article 14(1) of Regulation No 1392/2001, only the provisions of Regulation No 595/2004 are relevant for the purpose of answering that question. Indeed, by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 28 and the second paragraph of Article 29 thereof, Regulation No 595/2004 repealed Regulation No 1392/2001 with effect from 1 April 2004, and the main proceedings concern deliveries of milk made after that date. 24      Second, in so far as the question referred for a preliminary ruling refers to Article 23 of Regulation No 595/2004, it must be noted that paragraph 3 of that article concerns only the penalties applicable, where appropriate, to the purchaser in the event of withdrawal of its approval, whereas the referring court is, in essence, uncertain as to the extent of the Member States’ power to impose penalties on producers of milk and milk products, under Article 24(1) of that regulation, under which those States are to provide for penalties where deliveries of milk are made to non-approved purchasers. 25      Third, as regards the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and equality and non-discrimination, which are also mentioned in the wording of the question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court does not set out either the reasons which led it to inquire about the interpretation of those general principles of EU law or the relationship between those principles and the national legislation applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, contrary to the requirements of Article 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 November 2023, Commune d’Ans, C‑148/22, EU:C:2023:924, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited). In the absence of sufficient information in that regard, the question referred for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible in so far as it concerns those principles. 26      In the light of those clarifications, it must be held that, by its question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 24(1) of Regulation No 595/2004 and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides, where milk is delivered to non-approved purchasers, that all of the milk delivered is to be subject to an additional levy payable by the producer. 27      In the first place, it must be borne in mind, first, that, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 4 of Regulation No 1788/2003, 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. It follows from the second paragraph of Article 4 of that regulation that producers are to be liable vis-à-vis the Member State for payment of their contribution to the levy due for the mere fact of having overrun their available reference quantities. 28      The Court has already ruled on the legal nature of the additional levy on milk, stating that the provisions establishing it are not penal provisions but rather that levy is a restriction arising directly from the rules on the common organisation of the market in milk (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 March 2004, Cooperativa Lattepiù and Others, C‑231/00, C‑303/00 and C‑451/00, EU:C:2004:178, paragraph 74; of 15 July 2004, Gerekens and Procola, C‑459/02, EU:C:2004:454, paragraphs 34 to 37; and order of 21 June 2005, Azienda Agricola Balconi Andrea, C‑162/03, C‑185/03, C‑44/04, C‑45/04, C‑223/04, C‑224/04, C‑271/04 and C‑272/04, EU:C:2005:399, paragraphs 22, 23 and 28). 29      The additional levy is thus an intervention to stabilise agricultural markets and is to be used to finance expenditure in the milk sector. Apart from its obvious aim of requiring milk producers to observe the reference quantities allocated to them, the additional levy has an economic objective too, in that it is intended to bring to the European Union the funds necessary for disposal of milk produced by producers in excess of their quotas (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 June 2019, Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele, C‑348/18, EU:C:2019:545, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited). 30      As it aims to re-establish the balance between supply and demand in the milk market, which is characterised by structural surpluses, by limiting milk production, the additional levy comes within the ambit of the objectives of rational development of milk production and, by contributing to a stabilisation of the income of the agricultural community affected, of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community (judgment of 27 June 2019, Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele, C‑348/18, EU:C:2019:545, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited). 31      Second, under Article 24(1) of Regulation No 595/2004, the Member States are to lay down penalties where deliveries are made to non-approved purchasers. That provision must be read in the light of recital 6 of the same regulation, according to which the Member States must provide for controls and penalties in order to ensure that contributions to the payment of the levy established by Regulation No 1788/2003 are collected correctly. 32      Although Regulation No 595/2004 does not expressly provide that the addressee of the penalties referred to in Article 24(1) of Regulation No 595/2004, adopted by a Member State, is the producer, nothing in the wording or context of that provision precludes it. 33      Third, it follows from the foregoing that Regulations No 1788/2003 and No 595/2004 draw a distinction between, on the one hand, the additional levy introduced by Article 1 of Regulation No 1788/2003, which is allocated among the producers who contributed to the overrun of the reference quantities and who are liable vis-à-vis the Member State for payment of their contribution to the levy due for the mere fact of having overrun their available reference quantity or quantities and, on the other hand, the penalties introduced, inter alia, on the basis of Article 24(1) of Regulation No 595/2004, applicable to producers in the event of failure to comply with the conditions of that levy scheme. 34      In the present case, under the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, according to which all milk or milk equivalent delivered to a non-approved purchaser is subject to an additional levy payable by the producer, failure to comply with the conditions of that levy scheme is essentially treated in the same way as overrun, by that producer, of the available reference quantities. Although it is apparent from the documents before the Court that the measure at issue seeks to reintegrate into the milk quota scheme the total quantity of milk delivered to a non-approved purchaser to allow, inter alia, the basis for calculating the levy provided for by Regulation No 1788/2003 to be correctly determined, the fact remains that its application is not triggered by excess production but by non-compliance with the applicable conditions, and that such a measure is not, therefore, the mere logical consequence of the levy scheme established by Regulation No 1788/2003 (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 January 1999, Wilkens, C‑181/96, EU:C:1999:29, paragraph 38). 35      Furthermore, even if the measure at issue were to be regarded as a measure regulating the milk market under national law, it must be stated that, subject to verification by the referring court, that measure is not intended to reduce structural surpluses of production and to limit milk production, but only to correct the destabilising effects of milk deliveries to non-approved purchasers on that market without, however, affecting milk production as such. 36      In the light of those characteristics, that measure appears capable of coming within the scope of the concept of ‘penalty’ within the meaning of Article 24(1) of Regulation No 595/2004. This is all the more so since, as the measure at issue equally includes the quantities of milk covered by the quotas available to the producers concerned, it also seeks to penalise the circumvention of the system for tracing and controlling national reference quantities referred to in recital 6 of that regulation, which is a matter for the referring court to verify. 37      As regards, in the second place, the question whether the measure at issue complies with Article 24(1) of Regulation No 595/2004, it should be borne in mind that where an EU regulation does not specifically provide for any penalty for its infringement or refers, in that regard, to national provisions, Article 4(3) TEU requires the Member States to take all the measures necessary to guarantee the application and effectiveness of EU law (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 December 2017, Vaditrans, C‑102/16, EU:C:2017:1012, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited, and of 3 April 2019, Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie, C‑617/17, EU:C:2019:283, paragraph 37). To that effect, while the choice of applicable penalties remains within their discretion, the Member States must ensure in particular that infringements of EU law are penalised under conditions, as regards both procedure and substance, which are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and which, in any event, make the penalty effective, proportionate and dissuasive (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 September 2024, Neves 77 Solutions, C‑351/22, EU:C:2024:723, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited). 38      More specifically, sanctions laid down under national legislation must not go beyond what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objectives legitimately pursued by that legislation and must not be disproportionate to those objectives; in addition, the severity of those measures must be commensurate with the gravity of the infringements for which they are imposed, in particular by ensuring that their effect is genuinely dissuasive (see, to that effect, judgments of 6 July 2000, Molkereigenossenschaft Wiedergeltingen, C‑356/97, EU:C:2000:364, paragraphs 35 and 36, and of 10 September 2024, Neves 77 Solutions, C‑351/22, EU:C:2024:723, paragraph 77 and the case-law cited). 39      It is for the referring court, which alone has jurisdiction to interpret and apply national law, to assess whether, in the present case, the measure at issue meets the requirements set out in paragraphs 37 and 38 above. That said, it must nevertheless be stated that, in view of the importance which must be attached to the objective of ensuring that contributions to the payment of the levy established by Regulation No 1788/2003 are collected correctly and of ensuring compliance with the levy arrangements by all the parties involved, noted in paragraph 31 of this judgment, and, more generally, to the proper functioning of the milk quota system as a whole, the mere fact that the measure at issue also applies to quantities of milk which may be covered by a milk quota does not from the outset appear disproportionate. 40      Furthermore, having regard to the argument of the applicants in the main proceedings that the measure at issue should be subject to the national rules applicable to administrative penalties, which would enable them to benefit from the procedural guarantees attached to such measures under national law, it should be noted that, according to Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the provisions of that charter are addressed to Member States when they are implementing EU law. Consequently, in a procedure conducted pursuant to the provisions of national law implementing Article 24(1) of Regulation No 595/2004 regarding penalties where deliveries are made to non-approved purchasers, the addressee of the penalty must enjoy the procedural guarantees deriving, inter alia, from the rights of the defence and from the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, which enshrines the right to an effective remedy (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 September 2021, Adler Real Estate and Others, C‑546/18, EU:C:2021:711, paragraphs 40 to 43 and 48). This applies regardless of the specific legal classification given by the national legislature to such a penalty measure in domestic law. 41      Once again it is for the referring court to ascertain whether the measure at issue and the procedure which led to its adoption meet those requirements. 42      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 24(1) of Regulation No 595/2004 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides, where milk is delivered to non-approved purchasers, that all of the milk delivered is to be subject to an additional levy payable by the producer, provided that that measure is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The detailed rules for the adoption of such a penalty measure and the procedures enabling the producer to challenge it before the courts must, however, meet the requirements arising, in particular, from the rights of the defence and from Article 47 of the Charter.  Costs 43      Since 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. On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules: Article 24(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides, where milk is delivered to non-approved purchasers, that all of the milk delivered is to be subject to an additional levy payable by the producer, provided that that measure is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The detailed rules for the adoption of such a penalty measure and the procedures enabling the producer to challenge it before the courts must, however, meet the requirements arising, in particular, from the rights of the defence and from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. [Signatures] *      Language of the case: Italian.