# C_2023024EN.01001602.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/16

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v AB, CD and EF

(Case C-374/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Own resources of the European Union - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Proceedings relating to irregularities - Article 4 - Adoption of administrative measures - Article 3(1) - Limitation period for proceedings - Expiry - Whether it may be relied on in the context of the enforced recovery procedure - Article 3(2) - Period for implementation - Applicability - Starting point of the limitation period - Interruption and suspension)

(2023/C 24/22)

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 and EF

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests
  must be interpreted as not precluding, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, national legislation under which, for the purpose of challenging a decision to recover amounts wrongly paid, adopted after the expiry of the limitation period for proceedings referred to in that provision, the addressee of that decision is required to plead the irregularity thereof within a certain period before the competent administrative court, failing which the challenge will be time-barred, and the addressee is no longer able to object to the enforcement of that decision by relying on that irregularity in the context of the judicial proceedings for enforced recovery brought against that addressee. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests

must be interpreted as not precluding, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, national legislation under which, for the purpose of challenging a decision to recover amounts wrongly paid, adopted after the expiry of the limitation period for proceedings referred to in that provision, the addressee of that decision is required to plead the irregularity thereof within a certain period before the competent administrative court, failing which the challenge will be time-barred, and the addressee is no longer able to object to the enforcement of that decision by relying on that irregularity in the context of the judicial proceedings for enforced recovery brought against that addressee.

| 2. | The first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95
  must be interpreted as meaning that the secondarily liable parties from the debtor entity which is the addressee of a decision to recover amounts wrongly received, to whom tax enforcement proceedings have been extended, must be able to rely on the expiry of the period for implementation laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of that regulation or, as the case may be, of an extended period for implementation pursuant to Article 3(3) of that regulation, in order to oppose the enforced recovery of those amounts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95

must be interpreted as meaning that the secondarily liable parties from the debtor entity which is the addressee of a decision to recover amounts wrongly received, to whom tax enforcement proceedings have been extended, must be able to rely on the expiry of the period for implementation laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of that regulation or, as the case may be, of an extended period for implementation pursuant to Article 3(3) of that regulation, in order to oppose the enforced recovery of those amounts.

| 3. | The first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95
  must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards the implementation of a decision requiring the repayment of amounts wrongly received, the period for implementation established by that provision starts to run from the day on which that decision becomes final, that is to say, from the day on which the periods for bringing proceedings have expired or all rights of appeal have been exhausted. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95

must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards the implementation of a decision requiring the repayment of amounts wrongly received, the period for implementation established by that provision starts to run from the day on which that decision becomes final, that is to say, from the day on which the periods for bringing proceedings have expired or all rights of appeal have been exhausted.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---