# C_2010113EN.01002501.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 17 February 2010 — Q-Beef NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-89/10)

2010/C 113/39

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

Claimant: Q-Beef NV

Claimant:

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Community law preclude national courts from applying the limitation period of five years, which is laid down in the internal legal system in respect of debts owed by the State, to claims for the reimbursement of charges paid to a Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, and which were paid before the entry into force of a new system of aid and compulsory contributions which replaces the first system, and which, by a final decision of the Commission, was declared compatible with Community law, but not in so far as those charges were imposed retroactively in respect of a period prior to the date of that decision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Community law preclude national courts from applying the limitation period of five years, which is laid down in the internal legal system in respect of debts owed by the State, to claims for the reimbursement of charges paid to a Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, and which were paid before the entry into force of a new system of aid and compulsory contributions which replaces the first system, and which, by a final decision of the Commission, was declared compatible with Community law, but not in so far as those charges were imposed retroactively in respect of a period prior to the date of that decision?

| 2. | Does Community law preclude a Member State from successfully invoking national limitation periods which, in comparison with those applicable under ordinary national law, are particularly favourable to that Member State, as a defence against proceedings instituted against it by a private individual with a view to vindicating that private individual’s rights under the EC Treaty, in a case such as that before the national court, in which the effect of those particularly favourable national limitation periods is to render impossible the recovery of charges which were paid to the Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, where the conflict with Community law was established by the then Court of Justice of the European Communities only after the particularly favourable national limitation periods had expired, even if the illegality had existed earlier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Community law preclude a Member State from successfully invoking national limitation periods which, in comparison with those applicable under ordinary national law, are particularly favourable to that Member State, as a defence against proceedings instituted against it by a private individual with a view to vindicating that private individual’s rights under the EC Treaty, in a case such as that before the national court, in which the effect of those particularly favourable national limitation periods is to render impossible the recovery of charges which were paid to the Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, where the conflict with Community law was established by the then Court of Justice of the European Communities only after the particularly favourable national limitation periods had expired, even if the illegality had existed earlier?

---