# C_2016038EN.01003001.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Melun (France) lodged on 11 November 2015 — Glencore Céréales France v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

(Case C-584/15)

(2016/C 038/43)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Melun

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glencore Céréales France

Applicant:

Defendant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | It is possible to infer from the terms of the judgment of 9 March 2012 in Case C-564/10 Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft and Ernährung v Pfeifer & Langen KG that Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 (1) laying down Community law limitation rules is applicable to measures seeking payment of interest due pursuant to Article 52 of Regulation No 800/1999 (2) and Article 5a of Regulation No 770/96? (3) |
| --- | --- |

1)

It is possible to infer from the terms of the judgment of 9 March 2012 in Case C-564/10 Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft and Ernährung v Pfeifer & Langen KG that Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 (1) laying down Community law limitation rules is applicable to measures seeking payment of interest due pursuant to Article 52 of Regulation No 800/1999 (2) and Article 5a of Regulation No 770/96? (3)

Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft and Ernährung

Pfeifer & Langen KG

1

2

3

| 2) | Is the claim for interest to be regarded as naturally arising from a ‘continuous or repeated’ irregularity which ceases on the date on which the principal is repaid, thus deferring until that date the point at which the limitation period in respect of the claim for interest starts to run? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Is the claim for interest to be regarded as naturally arising from a ‘continuous or repeated’ irregularity which ceases on the date on which the principal is repaid, thus deferring until that date the point at which the limitation period in respect of the claim for interest starts to run?

| 3) | If Question 2 is answered in the negative, must the point at which the limitation period starts to run be the day on which the irregularity giving rise to the principal claim was committed, or may it not be the day on which the aid is paid or the security released, corresponding to the starting point for the calculation of such interest? |
| --- | --- |

3)

If Question 2 is answered in the negative, must the point at which the limitation period starts to run be the day on which the irregularity giving rise to the principal claim was committed, or may it not be the day on which the aid is paid or the security released, corresponding to the starting point for the calculation of such interest?

| 4) | For the purpose of the application of the rules on limitation laid down by Regulation No 2988/95, must any act which interrupts the limitation period insofar as concerns the principal claim be regarded as also interrupting the time running in respect of interest, even if no mention is made of interest in the acts directed at the principal claim that interrupt the limitation period? |
| --- | --- |

4)

For the purpose of the application of the rules on limitation laid down by Regulation No 2988/95, must any act which interrupts the limitation period insofar as concerns the principal claim be regarded as also interrupting the time running in respect of interest, even if no mention is made of interest in the acts directed at the principal claim that interrupt the limitation period?

| 5) | Does limitation become effective as a result of the fact that the maximum period provided for in the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 has expired if, within that period, the paying agency seeks recovery of the aid unduly paid without demanding at the same time the payment of interest? |
| --- | --- |

5)

Does limitation become effective as a result of the fact that the maximum period provided for in the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 has expired if, within that period, the paying agency seeks recovery of the aid unduly paid without demanding at the same time the payment of interest?

| 6) | Is it possible for the general five-year limitation period provided for under national law in Article 2224 of the Civil Code by Law No 2008-561 of 17 June 2008 to have replaced, as regards limitation periods that had not yet expired on the date when that law entered into force, the four-year limitation period laid down by Regulation No 2988/95, in the light of the derogation provided for in Article 3(3) of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

6)

Is it possible for the general five-year limitation period provided for under national law in Article 2224 of the Civil Code by Law No 2008-561 of 17 June 2008 to have replaced, as regards limitation periods that had not yet expired on the date when that law entered into force, the four-year limitation period laid down by Regulation No 2988/95, in the light of the derogation provided for in Article 3(3) of that regulation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 770/96 of 26 April 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92 laying down common detailed rules for verifying the use and/or destination of products from intervention (OJ 1996 L 104, p. 13).

3

---