# C_2011311EN.01000901.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel (Belgium)) — Q-Beef NV (C-89/10), Frans Bosschaert (C-96/10) v Belgische Staat (C-89/10), Belgische Staat, Vleesgroothandel Georges Goossens en Zonen NV, Slachthuizen Goossens NV (C-96/10)

(Joined Cases C-89/10 and C-96/10) (1)

1

(National charges incompatible with EU law - Charges paid under a financial support scheme and levies declared contrary to EU law - Scheme replaced by another scheme found to be compatible - Recovery of charges improperly levied - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Duration of the limitation period - Day on which the time-limit starts to run - Claims to recover from the State and from individuals - Different time-limits)

2011/C 311/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Q-Beef NV (C-89/10), Frans Bosschaert (C-96/10)

Applicants:

Defendants: Belgische Staat (C-89/10), Belgische Staat, Vleesgroothandel Georges Goossens en Zonen NV, Slachthuizen Goossens NV (C-96/10)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Interpretation of the Community law on the principles of equivalence and effectiveness — National charges incompatible with Community law — Charges paid under a system of financial support and contributions which was declared contrary to Community law — System replaced by a new system held to be compatible — Reimbursement of charges levied but not due — Limitation period

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | EU law does not preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the application of a five-year limitation period which is laid down in the national legal system for claims in respect of debts owed by the State to claims for the reimbursement of charges paid in breach of that law under a ‘hybrid system of aid and charges’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

EU law does not preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the application of a five-year limitation period which is laid down in the national legal system for claims in respect of debts owed by the State to claims for the reimbursement of charges paid in breach of that law under a ‘hybrid system of aid and charges’.

| 2. | EU law does not preclude national legislation which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, grants an individual a longer limitation period to recover charges from an individual acting as an intermediary, to whom he unwarrantedly paid the charges and who paid them on behalf of that first individual for the benefit of the State, whereas, if that first individual had paid those charges directly to the State, the action of that individual would have been restricted by a shorter time-limit, by way of derogation from the ordinary rules governing actions between private individuals for the recovery of sums paid but not due, on condition that the individuals acting as intermediaries may effectively bring actions against the State for sums which may have been paid on behalf of other individuals. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law does not preclude national legislation which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, grants an individual a longer limitation period to recover charges from an individual acting as an intermediary, to whom he unwarrantedly paid the charges and who paid them on behalf of that first individual for the benefit of the State, whereas, if that first individual had paid those charges directly to the State, the action of that individual would have been restricted by a shorter time-limit, by way of derogation from the ordinary rules governing actions between private individuals for the recovery of sums paid but not due, on condition that the individuals acting as intermediaries may effectively bring actions against the State for sums which may have been paid on behalf of other individuals.

| 3. | In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the Court’s finding, in a judgment following a reference for a preliminary ruling, that the retroactive nature of a national law at issue is incompatible with EU law has no bearing on the starting date of the limitation period laid down by national law in respect of claims against the State. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the Court’s finding, in a judgment following a reference for a preliminary ruling, that the retroactive nature of a national law at issue is incompatible with EU law has no bearing on the starting date of the limitation period laid down by national law in respect of claims against the State.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---