Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:795
Date: 2025-10-16
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Translation C-510/24 – 1 
Case C-510/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
23 July 2024 
Referring court: 
Fővárosi Törvényszék 
Date of the decision to refer: 
11 July 2024 
Applicant: 
PROFIL-COPY 2002 Irodatechnikai Kft. 
Defendant: 
Közigazgatási és Területfejlesztési Minisztérium 
  
Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) 
[...] 
DECISION 
In proceedings between PROFIL-COPY 2002 Irodatechnikai Kft., applicant, and 
the Közigazgatási és Területfejlesztési Minisztérium (Ministry of Public 
Administration and Regional Development, Hungary), defendant, requesting that 
revocation of the act granting a subsidy be declared unlawful, this court stays the 
proceedings and refers to the Court of Justice of the European Union the 
following 
request for a preliminary ruling. 
The facts: 
Within the framework of the Gazdaságfejlesztési és Innovációs Operatív Program 
Plusz (Economic Development and Innovation Operational Programme Plus), 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11. 7. 2024 – CASE C-510/24 
 
2  
which has the economic support of the European Union, the applicant received a 
non-returnable grant of 125,184,193 Hungarian Forints (HUF) for the installation 
of solar panels. The applicant received the grant and installed the solar panels. 
The managing authority, in the proceedings provided for (hereinafter, ‘irregularity 
proceedings’), found an irregularity and, consequently, proposed revocation of the 
grant and recovery of the 125,184,193 HUF paid. The applicant filed an appeal 
with the Miniszterelnökség Belső Ellenőrzési és Integritási Igazgatósága 
(Directorate of Internal Audit and Integrity in the Prime Minister's Office, 
Hungary). This body confirmed the contested decision. Appeals against such a 
decision are inadmissible. 
The managing authority revoked the grant and required the [applicant] to repay 
the amount received. In the event that the applicant failed to comply with this 
requirement, the managing authority would call on the tax authorities to recover 
the claim through enforced collection of tax. 
By statement of claim brought before the Fővárosi Törvényszék, the applicant 
instituted a civil action. The applicant requests that the decision finding an 
irregularity and, consequently, the order to repay the grant, be declared unlawful. 
In the same claim, the applicant also requests that this court, as an interim 
measure, prohibit the defendant from proceeding with the recovery or collection 
of the amount claimed. The applicant cited a justified special reason for requesting 
that the interim measure be issued, namely, that while it can only assert its rights 
against the defendant in civil proceedings, the opposing party can initiate 
enforcement against it by calling on the tax authorities. 
The defendant has not yet lodged a statement of defence on the merits, but has 
requested that the application for interim measures be dismissed. Citing a number 
of decisions handed down in other civil cases —with no precedent value—, the 
defendant holds that this court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an interim measure. 
Definition of the issue: 
The application for interim measures currently before the Fővárosi Törvényszék 
requires the interpretation of EU law. 
The case described above, relating to recovery of EU grants, is typical. Since the 
beginning of last year, twenty-eight cases of this kind have been brought before 
the Fővárosi Törvényszék alone, which, considering the rules on allocation of 
jurisdiction, are only those relating to grants over thirty million HUF. In the 
majority of such cases, applicants, in their applications for interim measures, 
request that the defendant be temporarily prohibited from proceeding with 
recovery of the claim. Applicants usually argue that enforcement of the claim 
during the proceedings makes economic activity impossible for the beneficiary of 
PROFIL-COPY 2002 
 
3 
the grant, due to the risk of falling into insolvency. In the event that the defendant 
proceeds with recovery of the claim, the defendant calls on the tax authorities, 
who have jurisdiction to initiate legal proceedings for collection. In legal 
proceedings for collection, the tax authorities collect the amount of the grant from 
the beneficiary’s bank account and liquidate the company’s assets, both movable 
and immovable, by way of enforcement. If the amount of the grant to be repaid is 
such that the person required to repay it cannot finance it because it exceeds their 
cash flow capabilities, collection may push them into insolvency, where they are 
unable to pay suppliers, public charges and wages. Due to insolvency, parties 
required to repay the grant face the threat of liquidation, with the real risk of going 
out of business before final judgment has been given in the proceedings, which 
makes it impossible for them to exercise their rights. 
Hungarian case-law is not unequivocal with regard to whether applications for 
interim measures lodged in this type of case are admissible. Judges of the Fővárosi 
Törvényszék and the Fővárosi ítélőtábla (High Court of the Capital), a second-
instance body, take two different positions, regardless of the court in which they 
sit. 
Some of them take the position that there is no obstacle in principle to ruling on 
interim measures, since the legislation regards a grant contract involving EU funds 
as a civil law relationship, and therefore, disputes arising from such a relationship 
are civil cases. Interim measures can be imposed in civil cases. 
However, supporters of the other position believe that interim measures of this 
kind are in principle excluded because they have concerns around jurisdiction and, 
in the absence thereof, declare the application inadmissible without considering it 
on the merits. This argument is essentially based on the fact that the tax authorities 
act in accordance with the az adóhatóság által foganatosítandó végrehajtási 
eljárásokról szóló 2017. évi CLIII. Törvény (Law CLIII of 2017 on enforcement 
proceedings that must be initiated by the tax authorities; hereinafter, ‘Law on 
Enforcement Proceedings’). Article 15 of this law establishes the bodies 
authorised to suspend legal proceedings for collection, which do not include the 
courts. 
Application of EU law: 
On the basis of both divided case-law and the defendant’s defence, this court must 
primarily consider whether it has jurisdiction, under Hungarian law, to order such 
a measure. In general, this consideration does not require interpretation of EU law, 
but given that, in these proceedings, this court is reviewing the legality of the 
recovery of an EU grant, EU law applies. 
In the civil proceedings before this court, it is considering whether the managing 
authority acted pursuant to the law, primarily in accordance with 2021-2027 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11. 7. 2024 – CASE C-510/24 
 
4  
programozási időszakban az egyes európai uniós alapokból származó támogatások 
felhasználásának rendjéről szóló 256/2021. (V. 18.) Korm. rendelet (Government 
Decree 256/2021, of 18 May, on the rules for the use of certain EU funds in the 
programming period 2021-2027), when it ordered the recovery of the grant. These 
rules set out, in particular, the necessary provisions for the implementation of 
Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional 
Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just 
Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and 
financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the 
Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border 
Management and Visa Policy. According to Article 69(2) of this Regulation, it is 
the responsibility of Member States to prevent, detect and correct irregularities in 
relation to EU aid. Under Article 69(7) of this Regulation, Member States shall 
make arrangements to ensure the effective examination of complaints concerning 
the Funds. The provisions of the aforementioned Regulation specify that 
complaints cover any dispute between potential and selected beneficiaries with 
regard to the proposed or selected operation and any disputes with third parties on 
the implementation of the programme or operations thereunder, irrespective of the 
qualification of means of legal redress established under national law. 
This court considers that the civil action before it is intended, irrespective of the 
qualification of means of legal redress established under national law, to appeal 
against the legality of revocation of the grant, in which the parties are the 
applicant, selected [beneficiary] and the managing authority. Consequently, this 
case falls within the scope of this provision (Article 69(7) of Regulation 
2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021). Since 
this court is applying EU law, the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of the European Union (hereinafter, ‘Charter’) should be applied both to these 
proceedings and to the managing authority procedure considered here. The 
questions referred for a preliminary ruling relate to the obligation to apply 
Article 47 of the Charter and the precise content thereof. 
As regards EU law, this request for a preliminary ruling asks, in essence, whether 
the provisions for dealing with irregularities established by the Member State 
comply with Article 47 of the Charter and, if not, whether the national court is 
required, within the scope of its own jurisdiction, to amend national law contrary 
to EU law. Consequently, this court must determine, on a provisional basis, 
whether the civil action before it is considered to be a remedy before a tribunal 
within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter and, if so, which criteria the 
effective remedy before a tribunal must meet and how the national court can apply 
them in such proceedings. 
Applicable national legislation: 
PROFIL-COPY 2002 
 
5 
Government Decree 256/2021, of 18 May, on the rules for the use of certain EU 
funds in the programming period 2021-2027, contains the main rules governing 
the legal relationship between the parties in the case. For the sake of simplicity, in 
this request for a preliminary ruling, these rules will hereinafter be referred to as 
‘Government Decree’. 
According to Article 132(1) of the Government Decree, the managing authority 
entered into a civil law grant contract with the beneficiary. The rules governing 
the grant contract must be applied, mutatis mutandis, when the legal grant 
relationship is established by means of a grant awarding instrument issued by the 
managing authority. 
In case of suspected irregularities, the managing authority shall conduct 
irregularity proceedings under Chapter XIII of the Government Decree. 
If an irregularity is found, the managing authority may, under Article 397(2) of 
the Government Decree: 
(a) proportionately reduce the eligible costs of the project and the grant and 
require the beneficiary to repay the unduly paid grant; 
(b) terminate the grant contract; 
(c) propose that for a limited period of time, no longer than five years, the 
beneficiary may not receive any of the grants included in the scope of this 
Government Decree; 
(d) apply any other legal consequence provided for by EU law. 
3. The managing authority sets out legal consequences proportionate to the 
irregularity. 
5. Where no irregularities are found, but there is a need to put an end to an 
infringement, the managing authority may adopt measures that affect the legal 
grant relationship. 
According to Article 397/A(1) of the Government Decree, where the managing 
authority finds in the irregularity proceedings that the act or omission contrary to 
the law, the call for grant proposals or the grant contract considered 
(a) did not materially affect the grant decision, the establishment or amendment 
of the legal grant relationship or the eligibility of project costs and 
(b) does not jeopardise the achievement of the development policy objective 
referred to in the call for proposals, 
the managing authority shall not find any irregularity, but —unilaterally amending 
the grant contract— shall reduce by 1%, up to a maximum of 10 million HUF, the 
amount of the current project grant. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11. 7. 2024 – CASE C-510/24 
 
6  
Under Article 403(1) of the Government Decree, if the decision finding an 
irregularity is unlawful or contrary to the grant contract or the call for grant 
proposals, the beneficiary may appeal against it once. 
In accordance with Article 414(1) of the Government Decree, at the end of the 
appeal proceedings, the Directorate of Internal Audit and Integrity 
(a) shall confirm the decision finding an irregularity; 
(b) shall set aside the decision finding an irregularity; or 
(c) shall set aside the decision finding an irregularity and institute new 
irregularity proceedings before the managing authority. 
Further appeals against this decision are inadmissible, even through court action. 
In accordance with Article 408(1)(d) of the Government Decree, if the beneficiary 
appeals against the decision, the Directorate of Internal Audit and Integrity shall 
declare it inadmissible without considering it on the merits. 
According to Article 418 of the Government Decree, in the event of 
misappropriation of a grant, use thereof contrary to the law or not for the purpose 
for which it was granted, revocation of the grant or termination of the grant 
contract, either unilaterally or by mutual agreement, the beneficiary is required to 
repay the unduly paid grant. 
The managing authority shall attempt to collect the debt through a payment order, 
offsetting or authorisation for payment in instalments. If repayment is not 
achieved by these means, the managing authority shall promptly call on the tax 
authorities, under Article 436(1) of the Government Decree, to collect the non-
repaid grant through enforced collection of tax. 
The tax authorities shall issue an official transfer order, which the payment 
services provider (bank) of the party required to repay the grant must enforce 
under Article 42(1) of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings. Also under this Law, 
the tax authorities shall initiate legal proceedings for collection on movable and 
immovable goods, but the insolvency of the interested party and, therefore, its 
economic inability may occur at the time of enforcement of the payment order on 
its bank account. 
In the face of the unilateral exercise of official authority by the defendant, the 
interested party is unable to challenge in court the decision ordering recovery of 
the grant before the decision becomes enforceable. Case-law has developed a 
specific mechanism for these cases: the interested party subsequently brings a 
civil action requesting that the termination of the grant contract be declared 
unlawful. The Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary) summarised the need for such a 
mechanism in its earlier judgment Pfv. 20.886/2018/5, in a substantially identical 
legal area: ‘The beneficiary of the grant cannot challenge in court the decision 
finding an irregularity, because the procedural mechanisms established to check 
PROFIL-COPY 2002 
 
7 
the proper compliance of grant contracts and findings made through such 
mechanisms – the finding of irregularity and the decision on the appeal against 
this finding— cannot be considered autonomous administrative acts, so the 
decision cannot be challenged autonomously before an administrative court. The 
beneficiary of the grant may challenge in court the legality of the termination of 
the grant contract, with guarantees of due process’. ‘From the specific procedural 
mechanism described above, it also follows, according to the Kúria (Supreme 
Court), that in order to protect the rights of the beneficiary of the grant, it is 
necessary to bring a declaratory action under Article 123 of the a polgári 
perrendtartásról szóló 2016. évi CXXX. Törveny (Law CXXX of 2016 on Civil 
Procedure; hereinafter, ‘Code of Civil Procedure’) to declare the termination of 
the grant contract unlawful, without the applicant being able to claim otherwise in 
the civil proceedings’. 
In civil proceedings, the applicant may request interim measures. Under 
Article 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may order interim measures 
at the request of a party 
(a) to prevent changes to the status quo, where it would be impossible to re-
establish it at a later date; 
(b) to avoid the party applying for interim measures being unable to exercise a 
right at a later date; 
(c) to prevent harm that directly threatens the party applying for interim 
measures; or 
(d) for other reasons that warrant particular attention. 
(2) The party applying for interim measures may request as an interim measure 
the same intervention it is aiming to achieve by taking legal action. 
To summarise this court’s position, the practical problem to be resolved stems 
from the fact that the law expressly regards as a civil law relationship a legal 
relationship that also has strong administrative elements, without providing an 
adequate solution to the problems that entails. As a general rule, a decision by a 
public authority can only be enforced if there are appropriate means of redress. A 
civil law claim can only be enforced by a court judgment or, in particular cases, a 
title declared enforceable by a court or a notary, all cases for which the Hungarian 
legal system provides appropriate means of redress. In accordance with the 
legislation referred to above, the managing authority orders the beneficiary of the 
grant to pay an amount by means of an enforceable title—a measure which, 
according to legal reasoning, should be considered a decision by a public 
authority. The law regards the current legal relationship between the parties as a 
civil law relationship, which prevents the managing authority from making a 
declaration on the use of means of redress against administrative rulings. 
However, enforcement of the decision is carried out according to administrative 
enforcement proceedings, which lack the means of redress available in cases of 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11. 7. 2024 – CASE C-510/24 
 
8  
enforcement of civil law claims because enforced collection of tax can only be 
initiated once the relevant means of redress have been exhausted. Nobody can 
enjoy such a privileged position in a state governed by the rule of law, since the 
legal system does not allow it in either administrative or civil law legal 
relationships. A party bound by an enforceable decision given without judicial 
review can only defend itself against it in some way by bringing a civil action, but 
this defence cannot be effective if it is not capable of effectively avoiding the 
consequences. 
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling and the grounds for them: 
To solve the above problem, this court must first clarify whether, in general, the 
right to an effective remedy before a tribunal guaranteed by the first sentence of 
Article 47 of the Charter applies. 
This is, therefore, the first question referred for a preliminary ruling: 
Does the beneficiary of a grant have the right to an effective remedy before a 
tribunal, established in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union, vis-à-vis an enforceable declaration by the managing 
authority requiring the beneficiary to repay the EU grant that has been paid? 
If the answer to this question is yes, the national court must determine whether the 
civil action before it can be considered to constitute such an effective remedy 
before a tribunal. In this regard, the Fővárosi Törvényszék considers two 
possibilities admissible: 
According to the first of these, if the beneficiary of the grant has the right to an 
effective remedy before a tribunal vis-à-vis a decision of this kind, the legislature 
must have guaranteed this right in the irregularity proceedings. Although the 
purpose of civil action is to avoid the consequences of the decision ordering 
repayment of a grant, it cannot be considered a remedy before a tribunal for the 
purpose of the proceedings; therefore, once the contested decision becomes 
enforceable, the proceedings are separate from the decision mechanism. Although 
the court finds an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter in this case, it is not in 
a position to remedy it within its own jurisdiction. It follows that civil proceedings 
before a court need not meet the requirements of an effective remedy before a 
tribunal. 
According to the other possibility, taking account of Article 69(7) of Regulation 
2021/1060 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 June 2021, the civil 
action before the Fővárosi Törvényszék, for the purposes of the application of 
Article 47 of the Charter, is considered to be a remedy before a tribunal vis-à-vis 
the grant recovery decision. It follows that this court must also comply with the 
PROFIL-COPY 2002 
 
9 
requirement to ensure an effective remedy before a tribunal in the proceedings 
before it. 
Consequently, the second question referred for a preliminary ruling is as follows: 
If the managing authority, by means of an enforceable declaration, requires 
the beneficiary to repay an EU grant that has been paid, and that beneficiary, 
in the absence of other means of redress, brings a civil action in order to 
avoid the consequences of that declaration, must that civil action be 
considered to be a remedy before a tribunal within the meaning of Article 47 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? 
If the answer to the second question referred for a preliminary ruling is yes, what 
meets the requirements to ensure an effective remedy before a tribunal will have 
to be determined. Thus, for example, is a remedy before a tribunal effective where 
there is a real possibility that, during the proceedings, the party resorting to the 
remedy may become insolvent precisely because of enforcement of the decision it 
is contesting, but the court, citing jurisdiction issues, does not suspend 
enforcement of the decision? 
Therefore, the third question referred for a preliminary ruling is as follows: 
Is a remedy considered to be effective for the purposes of Article 47 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union where it is not 
capable of avoiding the real risk of the person concerned becoming insolvent 
as a result of the measure which is under review in the appeal but is enforced 
before that appeal has been determined? 
If the Court of Justice of the European Union considers that such a remedy before 
a tribunal is not effective, it raises the question of the options available to the 
national court in such a situation where, according to its own assessment or on the 
basis of guidelines from higher courts, it becomes aware of its lack of instruments. 
In this context, the Fővárosi Törvényszék wishes to stress that it does not expect 
the Court of Justice of the European Union to resolve the dispute over jurisdiction 
that is dividing the Hungarian judiciary, but rather to eliminate the problem. If the 
national court has to ensure an effective remedy before a tribunal in all cases in 
order to safeguard the primacy of EU law, this obligation exists regardless of 
jurisdiction issues, which become irrelevant because, in such a case, the national 
court must use the legal instruments determined by the Court of Justice of the 
European Union. 
Therefore, the fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling is as follows: 
What can the national court do if the answer to the third question referred 
for a preliminary ruling is in the negative but it finds that the national 
legislation does not allow it to avoid the real risk of the person concerned 
becoming insolvent as a result of the measure which is under review in the 
appeal but is enforced before that appeal has been determined? Can the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11. 7. 2024 – CASE C-510/24 
 
10  
national court order interim measures to avoid the risk of the party becoming 
insolvent until final judgment has been given in the proceedings, where it is 
the only means of ensuring an effective remedy, even if it finds that national 
law does not allow it to do so? 
[...] [Element of national procedural law] 
Budapest, 11 July 2024. 
[...] 
[...] 
[signatures]