# C_2021357EN.01001001.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 18 June 2021 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v AB, CD, EF

(Case C-374/21)

(2021/C 357/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

Respondents: AB, CD, EF

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 preclude national legislation under which a limitation period of four or eight years may not be applied in judicial enforcement proceedings which have been commenced, since that issue may be assessed only in the context of an administrative-law action brought against the measure ordering the repayment of sums received in error on the ground that an irregularity has been established?
  If that question is answered in the negative, the following question is raised: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 preclude national legislation under which a limitation period of four or eight years may not be applied in judicial enforcement proceedings which have been commenced, since that issue may be assessed only in the context of an administrative-law action brought against the measure ordering the repayment of sums received in error on the ground that an irregularity has been established?

If that question is answered in the negative, the following question is raised:

| 2. | Must the three-year period laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 be regarded as being a limitation period applicable to the debt that is generated by the adoption of a measure requiring the repayment of sums received in error on account of the presence of irregularities in the financing? Does that period start to run from the date on which that measure is adopted?
  If that question is answered in the negative, the following question is also raised: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the three-year period laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 be regarded as being a limitation period applicable to the debt that is generated by the adoption of a measure requiring the repayment of sums received in error on account of the presence of irregularities in the financing? Does that period start to run from the date on which that measure is adopted?

If that question is answered in the negative, the following question is also raised:

| 3. | Does Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 preclude national legislation under which the limitation period applicable to the debt is interrupted in the case where, in the context of enforced recovery pursued against secondarily liable parties from the beneficiary company, those parties receive due notice, and remains suspended until such time as a final or unappealable decision is adopted on the objection raised by such secondarily liable parties? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 preclude national legislation under which the limitation period applicable to the debt is interrupted in the case where, in the context of enforced recovery pursued against secondarily liable parties from the beneficiary company, those parties receive due notice, and remains suspended until such time as a final or unappealable decision is adopted on the objection raised by such secondarily liable parties?

---

(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).

---