# C_2020443EN.01000801.xml

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2020 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v LM

(Case C-447/20)

(2020/C 443/09)

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)

Respondent: LM

Questions referred

| I. | Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 (1) preclude national legislation which imposes on the beneficiary of a subsidy the burden of bringing before the competent court an administrative action against a measure ordering the repayment of amounts received unduly by reason of the occurrence of an irregularity, failing which that measure will become final [...] if it not appealed in time (that is to say, if the beneficiary does not avail himself in time of the means of defence available to him under national law) and, in consequence, the amount unduly received will be recoverable in accordance with the rules and time limits laid down by national law? |
| --- | --- |

I.

Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 (1) preclude national legislation which imposes on the beneficiary of a subsidy the burden of bringing before the competent court an administrative action against a measure ordering the repayment of amounts received unduly by reason of the occurrence of an irregularity, failing which that measure will become final [...] if it not appealed in time (that is to say, if the beneficiary does not avail himself in time of the means of defence available to him under national law) and, in consequence, the amount unduly received will be recoverable in accordance with the rules and time limits laid down by national law?

| II. | Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 preclude national legislation according to which the beneficiary of a subsidy may not rely on the expiry of the four- or eight-year time limit in the course of judicial proceedings for enforcement which have been brought against him, since that issue can be assessed only in the context of an administrative-law action brought against the measure ordering repayment of the amounts received unduly by reason of the establishment of an irregularity?
  In the event that the aforementioned questions are answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

II.

Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 preclude national legislation according to which the beneficiary of a subsidy may not rely on the expiry of the four- or eight-year time limit in the course of judicial proceedings for enforcement which have been brought against him, since that issue can be assessed only in the context of an administrative-law action brought against the measure ordering repayment of the amounts received unduly by reason of the establishment of an irregularity?

In the event that the aforementioned questions are answered in the negative:

| III. | Must the three-year limitation period provided for in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 be regarded as a limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing? Does that period start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted?
  Lastly, clarification is required as to the following: |
| --- | --- |

III.

Must the three-year limitation period provided for in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 be regarded as a limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing? Does that period start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted?

Lastly, clarification is required as to the following:

| IV. | Does Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 [preclude] national legislation according to which the three-year limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing must start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted and must be interrupted by a notification of the institution of proceedings for the enforced recovery of those amounts, remaining suspended until such time as those proceedings culminate in a definitive or final decision in cases involving a complaint, a challenge, an appeal or an opposition, where these suspend recovery of the debt? |
| --- | --- |

IV.

Does Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 [preclude] national legislation according to which the three-year limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing must start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted and must be interrupted by a notification of the institution of proceedings for the enforced recovery of those amounts, remaining suspended until such time as those proceedings culminate in a definitive or final decision in cases involving a complaint, a challenge, an appeal or an opposition, where these suspend recovery of the debt?

---

(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).

---