Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In the context of proceedings between SpA Villa Banfi on the one hand and the Regione Toscana [Region of Tuscany], the Ispettorato Provinciale dell'Agricoltura [Provincial Agricultural Inspectorate], Siena, and Messrs Svelto Ricco and Luigi Garelli on the other, the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Toscana [Regional Administrative Tribunal of Tuscany, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal] has asked this Court to clarify the term a farmer practising farming as his main occupation within the meaning of Article 3 of Council Directive 72/159/EEC of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of farms (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 324). In particular, the Tribunal wishes to know whether the term refers to all natural and legal persons and, with regard to the latter category, whether Member States may exclude certain types of undertaking, such as companies limited by shares, from the benefits provided for those who are comprised within the term.

2. The facts are as follows: By applications dated 11 February, 31 May and 13 November 1978, SpA Villa Banfi, whose registered office is in Rome, requested the region of Tuscany to grant it (a) authorization for the planting and replanting of vineyards in the municipality of Montalcino, and (b) a declaration that continuation of the existing use of the land for cultivation and grazing was impossible in view of its incompatibility with the intended use. By Decision No 150 of 30 April 1979 the Regional Council confirmed the authorization previously granted to the company by the Provincial Office for Agriculture, Siena, regarding the planting of 54 hectares of vines for the production of DOC Brunello di Montalcino wine, but in view of the applicable Community, national and regional legislation, refused authorization for the new planting of vines on a further 245.27 hectares. It did not, therefore, issue a declaration as to the feasibility of the agricultural restructuring plan. In support of its refusal the Regional Council cited three reasons: (a) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1162/76 on measures designed to adjust winegrowing potential to market requirements (Official Journal 1976, L 135, p. 32) exempts from the prohibition on the planting of vines any new plantings carried out under farm development plans which meet the conditions laid down in Council Directive 72/159 (cited above), (b) Article 13 of Law No 153 of 9 May 1985, which implements that directive, and Articles 5 and 7 of Tuscan Regional Law No 71 of 7 September 1977 establish a special aid scheme for farms, singly and in association, which, in the case of legal persons, applies only to agricultural cooperatives and associations of farmers practising farming as their main occupation, and (c) Villa Banfi does not fall within that class of persons.

3. I propose to begin by considering the four legislative instruments — two Community and two national — whose relationship is at issue between the parties to the main proceedings. Adopted in the framework of the Mansholt Plan, Directive 72/159 seeks to bring about a significant improvement in agricultural incomes, and working and production conditions, by giving incentives to farms capable of development. To that end Article 1 (1) provides that Member States are to introduce a system of selective measures designed to encourage the operation and development of farms under rational conditions, whilst Article 1 (2) authorizes them to vary according to region the amount of the financial incentives provided for in the directive and, in some regions, to withhold them in whole or in part. Under Article 2 a farm is to be considered suitable for development where its owner practises farming as his main occupation, possesses adequate occupational skill and competence, undertakes to keep accounts, draws up a development plan which satisfies the conditions laid down in the directive and has a level of earned income lower than that received for nonagricultural work in the region.

4. The observations submitted by the region of Tuscany concerning the admissibility of the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling need only brief consideration. It claims that the national court did not formulate any questions as such and improperly submitted to the Court problems regarding the compatibility of national provisions with Community provisions. In particular, the national court is (according to the defendant) asking this Court for an impossible appraisal of whether certain national and regional provisions are consistent with Community law.

5. As I have said, the reference is concerned with the meaning and scope of Article 3(1) of Directive 72/159. More precisely, it is a matter of establishing whether, in determining what is meant by a farmer practising farming as his main occupation with regard to legal persons, Member States enjoy complete freedom or are subject to certain restrictions — other than those explicitly set by the article itself, that is. The Commission and the region of Tuscany subscribe to the first proposition, whereas the other, naturally, is favoured by Villa Banfi.

6. The problem submitted by the national court presupposes that the aims pursued and the methods employed by Directive 72/159 may be clearly identified. Underlying the Community legislation are two findings: first, that the income of many general undertakings does not ensure those working for them a standard of living comparable to that of nonagricultural workers, and secondly, that it is not possible to close or reduce that gap unless pressure is exerted on the actual structure of those undertakings. That explains the decision to grant aid only to farms considered suitable for development — that is, to units of production displaying characteristics which suggest that they will use the aid to attain a level of income on a par with the industrial and services sectors (see Article 2). It is in that perspective that Article 3 (1) introduces the term farmer practising farming as his main occupation, identifying him in the first subparagraph, which deals with natural persons, by reference to certain criteria. As far as legal persons, on the other hand, are concerned, the second subparagraph provides that it is for Member States to define that term, regard being had to the criteria indicated [above].

7. For all the reasons set out above I suggest that the Court should give the following answer to the problem of interpretation referred to it by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Toscana by order of 24 October 1980, in the legal proceedings brought by SpA Villa Banfi against the region of Tuscany, the Provincial Office for Agriculture, Siena, and Messrs Svelto Ricco and Luigi Garelli:

1 Translated from the Italian.

2 Translator's note: Farm manager is meant (see other language versions of this text).