Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:519
Date: 2022-06-28
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;General provisions;Financial provisions;Wine;Own resources
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Portugal

Anonymised version 
Translation C-728/21 – 1 
Case C-728/21 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged:  
30 November 2021 
Referring court:  
Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
4 November 2021 
Appellant:  
OF 
Respondent:  
Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP 
  
SUPREMO TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIVO 
(SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 
PROCEEDINGS No […] 
THE CHAMBER FOR CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 
OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT HAS MADE THE 
FOLLOWING ORDER: 
OF, […] brought before the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Almada 
(Administrative and Tax Court, Almada; ‘TAF’) an action for judicial review of 
the decision of 20 April 2015 of the Chair of the Board of Directors of the 
Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas – IP (Agriculture and Fisheries 
Financing Institute; ‘IFAP’) ordering him to repay the sum of EUR 2 839.81, by 
way of the ‘sheep and goat bonus’ for 2010, which he had received in error. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 11. 2021 – CASE C-728/21 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
By judgment of 27 June 2018, that action was upheld and the contested decision 
was annulled. 
IFAP brought an appeal against that judgment before the Tribunal Central 
Administrativo Sul (Southern Central Administrative Court; ‘TCAS’), which 
upheld the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal. 
The appellant has brought before the Tribunal Supremo Administrativo (Supreme 
Administrative Court) an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the TCAS 
and put forward the following arguments in his appeal: 
‘I – In the applicant’s view, the present appeal in cassation meets the conditions of 
admissibility laid down in Article 150(1) of the Código de Processo nos Tribunais 
Administrativos (Portuguese Code of Administrative Court Procedure, “CPTA”). 
II – The court of first instance applied to the proven facts Article 3 of Council 
Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European 
Communities financial interests, which provides: 
“1. The limitation period for proceedings shall be four years as from the time 
when the irregularity referred to in Article 1(1) was committed. However, the 
sectoral rules may make provision for a shorter period which may not be less than 
three years. 
In the case of continuous or repeated irregularities, the limitation period shall run 
from the day on which the irregularity ceases. In the case of multiannual 
programmes, the limitation period shall in any case run until the programme is 
definitively terminated. 
The limitation period shall be interrupted by any act of the competent authority, 
notified to the person in question, relating to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity. The limitation period shall start again following each 
interrupting act. 
However, limitation shall become effective at the latest on the day on which a 
period equal to twice the limitation period expires without the competent authority 
having imposed a penalty, except where the administrative procedure has been 
suspended in accordance with Article 6(1). 
2. The period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative 
penalty shall be three years. That period shall run from the day on which the 
decision becomes final. 
Instances of interruption and suspension shall be governed by the relevant 
provisions of national law. 
3. Member States shall retain the possibility of applying a period which is 
longer than that provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 respectively”. 
IFAP 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
III ― The court of first instance regarded as time-barred IPAF’s right to 
request that the applicant repay the aid which he had received in 2010, on the 
ground that the sum sought from him corresponds to the sheep and goat bonus for 
2010 and the infringement relates to the non-existence of a stock and movements 
register (RED) for that year, and reached the conclusion that, on 6 April 2015, 
the date on which the applicant was given notice by the defendant to exercise 
his right to a prior hearing, the defendant’s right to seek repayment of the 
aid had already become time-barred, since the four-year period laid down in 
Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 had expired 
(our emphasis). 
IV ― The court of first instance further considered that the act of becoming 
aware of a control report which does not support the inference of an intention to 
investigate or institute legal proceedings in respect of the irregularity is not 
capable of interrupting the calculation of that four-year limitation period. 
V ― In its judgment, the [TCAS] stated that the act of making the applicant 
aware of the content of the control report establishing the existence of 
irregularities is to be construed, for the purposes of the [third] subparagraph of 
Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, as an act of the competent authority 
relating to investigation of the irregularity which is capable of interrupting the 
limitation period. 
VI ― Accordingly, the TCAS formed the interpretation that a check as 
described in points E and F of the proven facts has the effect of interrupting the 
limitation period because it is an act of the competent authority relating to 
investigation of the irregularity, unlike the court of first instance, which 
considered that there was no ground for interruption of the limitation period, given 
that the wording of that report did not support the inference of an intention on the 
part of the defendant to investigate or institute legal proceedings in respect of the 
irregularity. 
VII ― The content of the on-the-spot check forming the subject of the dispute is 
governed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009. 
See, by way of example, the judgment of the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça 
(Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice) in case 0912/15 of 7 June 2018, which, 
unless [the appellant] is mistaken, does not show that the check has the effect of 
interrupting the limitation period. 
VIII ― It is apparent from point G of the proven facts that, up until that date 
(6 April 2015), Article [54](2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 
30 November 2009 was not complied with, and that there is no record of any prior 
date or act which may be regarded as an ‘act of the competent authority, notified 
to the person in question, relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning 
the irregularity’, within the meaning and for the purposes of the [third] 
subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 11. 2021 – CASE C-728/21 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
IX ― […] 
X ― The judgment of the [TCAS] is vitiated by an error of assessment in 
relation to the interpretation and assessment of the applicable Community 
provisions. 
XI ― [That judgment] is not in accordance with the law, since, despite stating 
that ‘the act of making the applicant aware of the control report establishing the 
existence of irregularities must be construed, for the purposes of the [third] 
subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, as an act of the competent 
authority relating to investigation of the irregularity which is capable of 
interrupting the limitation period’, it disregards that part of the provision which 
states ‘… relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the 
irregularity’ (our emphasis). 
XII ― Thus, that judgment is vitiated by a manifest error of interpretation of the 
provision and a failure to square the facts with the provision at an abstract level, 
given that it does not apply the [third] subparagraph of the provision which it 
cites, and disregards it.  
XIII ― For, in concluding that the limitation period applicable to the proceedings 
had been interrupted in accordance with the [third] subparagraph of Article 3(1) of 
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, the [TCAS] did not take into account or 
assess the relevant rules of law, with the result that the judgment of the [TCAS] 
cannot be confirmed in this regard and the bringing of the present appeal is 
therefore justified. 
XIV ― Furthermore, it is of the utmost legal importance that this appeal should 
be found to be admissible, given that the dispute and the decision to be adopted 
may extend beyond the limits of the particular situation under examination, as, 
indeed, is already the case, since the courts are applying the most recent case-law 
of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portuguese Supreme Administrative 
Court) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) indiscriminately, 
without having regard to the specific nature of the grounds for interruption of the 
limitation period applicable to the aid and without adjudicating on the rules that 
are to be applied or on the meaning to be given to an ‘act of the competent 
authority, notified to the person in question, relating to investigation or legal 
proceedings concerning the irregularity’. 
XV ― For, in reaching the conclusion that the proceedings had not become 
time-barred in the manner provided for in the [third] subparagraph of 
Article 3[(1)] of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, the [TCAS] did not take 
into account or assess the relevant rules of law and adopted an erroneous and 
contra legem interpretation of the applicable Community legislation, thus 
manifestly infringing the substantive rules, in particular the aforementioned [third] 
subparagraph of Article 3[(1)] of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, 
Article 54(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 
IFAP 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
2009 and Articles 8 and 9(2) of the Código Civil (Portuguese Civil Code), and it is 
therefore respectfully submitted that the appeal in cassation must be found to be 
admissible in the interests of the improved application of Community law. 
XVI ― On that basis, the judgment under appeal is amenable to appeal in 
cassation in the interests of the improved application of the law, given that this 
dispute is concerned with an irregularity, in so far as the alleged ground for 
interruption of the limitation period (the control report) is not provided for in 
Community law and is not in itself capable of interrupting the limitation period, 
since notification of the control report to the person concerned was not 
accompanied by an indication that the report related to investigation or legal 
proceedings concerning the irregularity. 
XVII ― […] 
XVIII ― According to the party now appearing as appellant, this reference is of 
fundamental legal and social importance, since it addresses a number of issues 
which impact on the national legal order, the applicability of which to a wide 
range of other cases is beyond any doubt, it being common knowledge that 
beneficiaries are paid thousands of subsidies, many of which are or have been the 
subject of proceedings similar to those with which the present case is concerned. 
XIX ― To disregard the provisions of the [third] subparagraph of Article 3[(1)] 
of Regulation No 2988/95, as the [TCAS] does, infringes the rules of 
interpretation laid down in Articles 8 and 9 of the Código Civil (Portuguese Civil 
Code) and the appeal in cassation is therefore of fundamental legal usefulness, 
inasmuch as the ruling to be given by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo 
(Portuguese Supreme Administrative Court) will be a mandatory point of 
reference, as it will clarify the exact basis on which the [third] subparagraph of 
Article 3[(1)] of Regulation No 2988/95 is to be applied. 
XX ― This appeal is also of the utmost social importance, since the intervention 
of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portuguese Supreme Administrative 
Court) will enable its guidance to be extended to future cases which are similar or 
of the same kind. 
XXI ― Now, in the light of the information contained in the documents in the 
case file, it may be concluded that the appellant wishes, in essence, to challenge 
the position adopted in the judgment under appeal as regards the application in the 
present proceedings of the [third] subparagraph of Article 3[(1)] of Regulation 
No 2988/95. 
XXII ― This appeal must be found to be admissible, since the issues to be 
examined are of fundamental legal and social importance and the intervention of 
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portuguese Supreme Administrative Court) 
is therefore essential, useful and indispensable to the improved application of the 
law. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 11. 2021 – CASE C-728/21 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
XXIII ― Given that this appeal in cassation to the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça 
(Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice) meets the conditions of admissibility laid 
down in Article 150(1) of the CPTA, and given the complexity of the issues 
raised, it is appropriate to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union. 
XXIV ― Account being taken, on the one hand, of the proven facts in these 
proceedings and, on the other hand, of the rules of law applicable to the limitation 
and interruption of administrative proceedings, it must be concluded that, in this 
case, the administrative proceedings have become time-barred. 
XXV ― In so far as the lower court formed the view and stated that the 
administrative proceedings had not become time-barred, on the ground that the 
limitation period had been interrupted by notification of the control report, it erred 
in law in not applying to this case the [third] subparagraph of Article 3[(1)] of 
Regulation No 2988/95, since, according to that provision, the limitation period is 
to be interrupted by ‘any act of the competent authority, notified to the person in 
question, relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the 
irregularity’, so that, if the content of the report does not support the inference of 
an intention on the part of the defendant to investigate or institute legal 
proceedings in respect of the irregularity, the act of disclosing its content is not 
capable of interrupting the calculation of the four-year limitation period laid down 
in the aforementioned article. 
XXVI ― However, since there is still some uncertainty as to the correct 
application in this case of the [third] subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council 
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995, and since it is for 
the CJEU to interpret Community law, the appellant takes the view that, in this 
case, it is appropriate to refer the following question to the CJEU for a preliminary 
ruling: 
b) Does an on-the-spot check within the meaning of Article 54 of Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 which does not mention 
any intention to investigate or institute legal proceedings in respect of an 
irregularity constitute a ground for interruption of the limitation period for the 
purposes of the [third] subparagraph of Article 3[(1)] of Regulation (EC) 
No 2988/95, according to which ‘the limitation period shall be interrupted by any 
act of the competent authority, notified to the person in question, relating to 
investigation or legal proceedings concerning the irregularity’? 
XXVII― The answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling will later 
determine the answer to the aforementioned limitation period issue that falls to be 
disposed of in this case […]. 
[…]’ 
The respondent did not respond to the statement of appeal. 
IFAP 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
[…] an order was made declaring the appeal in cassation to be admissible. 
[…] 
GROUNDS 
I. FACTS 
The judgment under appeal considered the following facts to be proved: 
‘A) The applicant is the owner of a holding by the name of “[…]” (common 
ground between the parties). 
B) On that holding, the applicant carries on the activity of organic and livestock 
farming (common ground between the parties). 
C) In 2010, the applicant submitted to the defendant a single-payment 
application including a request for a sheep and goat bonus […]. 
D) On 2 February 2010, the defendant paid the sheep and goat bonus for 2010 
in the total amount of EUR 2 839.81 […]. 
E) Between 12 and 14 July 2011, the defendant carried out on the applicant’s 
holding an on-the-spot check, the report relating to which reads, in particular, as 
follows: 
“[…] 
For the reasons set out above, the team carrying out the check asked for the 2010 
stock and movements register (RED) for sheep and goats (RED-OC) in order to 
be able to carry out a retrospective check. 
In the course of that check, it was not possible to obtain information relating to 
2010 because there was no sheep and goat stock and movements register (RED-
OC) for that year. According to the legal representative, the sheep and goat stock 
and movements register (RED-OC) for 2010 was lost” […]. 
F) The control report referred to in the above point was signed by the 
applicant’s legal representative on 14 July 2011 […]. 
G) On 6 April 2015, the applicant received from the defendant a notification 
entitled “Written Hearing in accordance with Articles 100 and 101 of the Código 
do Procedimento Administrativo (Portuguese Code of Administrative Procedure; 
CPA). Sheep and goat bonus for 2010”, which was worded as follows: 
“In accordance with the applicable legislation, in particular Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009, Commission Regulation 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 11. 2021 – CASE C-728/21 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
(EC) No 1121/2009 of 29 October 2009, Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 
19 January 2009, Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 and 
Circular No 9133/2005 of 26 April 2005, this Institute carried out a 
physical/administrative check of the application submitted. 
In the course of that check, it was found, on the basis of the information currently 
available, that fewer than 10 animals were accounted for and none of the animals 
referred to in the application for a bonus could therefore be regarded as eligible 
for a subsidy. 
This situation gives rise to a bonus penalty in the season in question. 
In that context, and on the basis and for the purposes provided for in Articles 100 
and 101 of the [CPA], this is to notify you that it is the intention of this Institute to 
recover the amount paid in error, which is equal to EUR 2 839.81, and to inform 
you that you have up to ten working days from the date of receipt of this letter, or, 
in the alternative, from the third day following the date of the postmark, to submit 
any observations you may wish to make. 
Nevertheless, if you wish to pay the abovementioned amount immediately, you 
must do so in one of the ways indicated below. In any event, payment must be 
made within a period of up to ten working days from the date of receipt. 
In this case, this letter constitutes a final decision terminating the present 
proceedings […]” […]. 
H) On 10 April 2015, the applicant commented on the defendant’s intention to 
recover the sum of EUR 2 839.81, arguing in particular as follows: 
“After careful reading, I am unable to ascertain the reason why you are asking 
me to repay the sum of EUR 2 839.81. In addition to pointing out the absence of 
any reason, I also object to your intention to impose on me a penalty [for an act] 
allegedly committed in 2009, given that, in accordance with Article 3(1) of 
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995, the 
proceedings were time-barred because more than four years had elapsed […]” 
[…]. 
I) On 20 April 2015, the Chair of the Board of Directors of IFAD adopted a 
final decision by letter under reference number 06427/2015 DAD-UPAD, which 
is worded as follows: 
“The investigation stage of the administrative proceedings relating to the case 
identified above having drawn to a close, it is appropriate to adopt a decision in 
the form and on the bases that follow: by letter under reference number 
OVI270/190112 – DAD/UA, you were notified, on the basis and for the purposes 
provided for in Article 100 et seq. of the [CPA], of the intention of this Institute to 
recover the sum paid in error by way of the bonus and for the year identified 
above. 
IFAP 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
That intention derives from the conclusions drawn from the 
physical/administrative check carried out by this Institute which revealed an 
infringement of the rules applicable to the bonuses and the year identified above. 
For, in the course of that check, it was found, on the basis of the information 
currently available, that you received a sum of EUR 2 839.81 in error inasmuch 
as you do not have an up-to-date stock and movements register (RED). 
In accordance with the applicable legislation, in particular Commission 
Regulation (EC)_No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009, Commission Regulation 
(EC) No 1121/2009 of 29 October 2009, Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 
19 January 2009, Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 and 
Circular No 9133/2005 of 26 April 2005, the irregularity found to have been 
committed entails a penalty in the form of a reduction in the amount of the aid. 
Given that your reply does not invalidate the factual and legal assumptions 
contained in that letter, since, in the application for the bonus in question, you 
stated that you had 240 sheep (the limit being 168) and, in the physical check 
carried out in 2011, we found (albeit retrospectively, so that the check includes 
the 2010 season ― it being necessary to note that these proceedings do not cover 
the 2009 season ―) that you did not have an up-to-date stock and movements 
register (RED) and, in August, 0 animals were accounted for. Consequently, 168 
animals remain unsubstantiated and an order is therefore made for repayment of 
the sum of EUR 2 839.81, which is considered to have been received in error by 
way of the bonus and for the year identified above. 
In this context, and so far as concerns repaying the EUR 2 839.81 voluntarily, you 
are informed that you may do so in one of the ways indicated below. In any event, 
payment must be made within a period of up to thirty days from the date of 
receipt. 
On expiry of the period laid down in the previous paragraph, if the sum paid in 
error has not been repaid voluntarily, the amount owed (together with the 
corresponding statutory interest) will be deducted from any valid claims and, if no 
such valid claims exist or those that do are insufficient, proceedings will be 
instituted for the enforced recovery of the amount owed. […]” 
J) On 21 April 2015, the applicant was notified of the decision referred to in 
the previous point […]. 
K) On 11 May 2015, the applicant challenged the decision referred to in point I 
above […]. 
L) On 5 May 2016, judgment was given in interim relief proceedings 
No 2574/15.2BEALM-A and an order was made for suspension of the effects of 
the decision of the Chair of the Board of Directors of IFAP requiring the applicant 
(then appellant) to repay the sum of EUR 2 839.81 by way of the sheep and goat 
bonus for 2010 […].’ 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 11. 2021 – CASE C-728/21 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
II. LEGAL GROUNDS 
In its judgment, the TAF, taking the view that the contested measure was not 
vitiated by the other defects alleged, upheld the action brought by the now 
appellant on the ground that the law had been infringed, given that, in accordance 
with the [third] subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 
No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 (‘the Regulation’), the four-year period laid 
down for repayment of the Community aid in question had already expired, 
inasmuch as the infringement committed related to the non-existence of the RED-
OC (sheep and goat stock and movements register (RED-OC) for 2010 and the 
applicant was not given notice to exercise his right to a prior hearing until 6 April 
2015. It further held that the fact that the applicant was aware of the control report 
forming the basis of the contested measure on 14 July 2011 did not interrupt the 
limitation period, given that the content of that report did not support the inference 
that the defendant intended to investigate or institute proceedings in respect of the 
irregularity. 
In the appeal brought before the TCAS, IFAP, after arguing that the irregularity 
was committed on 2 December 2010 (the date on which the bonus was paid to the 
applicant) and that the control report constituted an act relating to investigation of 
the irregularity of which the applicant was aware on 14 July 2011, submitted that 
the limitation period was to be regarded as having been interrupted on that date, in 
accordance with the [third] subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Regulation, and 
that the contested decision was not therefore vitiated by the defect stated in the 
judgment at first instance. 
The same reasoning was adopted in the judgment under appeal, which stated that 
the limitation period ― which had started to run on 2 February 2010 with 
payment of the aid to the applicant ― was interrupted on 14 July 2011, when the 
applicant’s legal representative was notified of the control report, which, for the 
purposes of the [third] subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Regulation, constituted 
an act of the competent authority relating to investigation of the irregularity, and 
thus concluded that the limitation period had not become effective because four 
years had not elapsed between that interruption and the point (namely, 6 April 
2015) at which the applicant was given notice to exercise his right to a prior 
hearing. 
In the present appeal in cassation, the applicant submits that the judgment under 
appeal is vitiated by an error of assessment in that it misinterprets the [third] 
subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Regulation and argues that, as is apparent from 
points E and F of the proven facts, the content of the control report does not 
support the inference of an intention on the part of the defendant to investigate or 
institute legal proceedings in respect of the irregularity, and that, for that reason, 
its notification to the applicant’s legal representative does not have the effect of 
interrupting the limitation period, and requests, in the event that uncertainty as to 
the correct interpretation of that provision remains, that a question be referred to 
the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. 
IFAP 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
It follows from the foregoing that this case is concerned with the determination of 
whether the communication of the report referred to in points E and F of the 
proven facts to the applicant’s legal representative interrupted the limitation 
period. 
The answer to this question ― which, if in the affirmative, means that limitation 
has not become effective and, if negative, establishes the validity of that exception 
― depends on the interpretation of the [third] subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the 
Regulation, which provides as follows: 
‘The limitation period shall be interrupted by any act of the competent authority, 
notified to the person in question, relating to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity. The limitation period shall start again following each 
interrupting act’. 
The outcome of the present appeal will be different depending on whether the 
view is taken, as was the case in the judgment under appeal, that it is sufficient for 
the report of the on-the-spot check to establish the existence of an irregularity in 
order for that report to be regarded as relating to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity, or, conversely, that the content of that report must 
support the inference of an intention on the part of the defendant, as proposed in 
the judgment given at first instance. 
In accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, the courts of the countries of the European Union are obliged to submit a 
request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
(CJEU) where the validity and interpretation of European Union law are in issue 
and this is necessary to enable a national court to give judgment, any such national 
court being obliged to make such a request where its decision is not amenable to 
any further judicial remedy under national law. 
According to the case-law of the CJEU, that obligation to make a reference for a 
preliminary ruling which is incumbent upon national courts of last instance may 
be excluded only where there is relevant settled case-law or where the correct way 
to interpret the provision of law in question is beyond reasonable doubt. 
Now, in so far as, in the context of the present appeal in cassation, the Supremo 
Tribunal Administrativo (Portuguese Supreme Administrative Court) is the court 
of last instance and the aforementioned exceptional circumstances in which the 
obligation to make a reference may be excluded are not present, it is appropriate 
to ask the CJEU to give a preliminary ruling on the following question: 
‘Does an on-the-spot-check within the meaning of Article 54 of Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 which merely reveals the 
existence of an irregularity and does not mention any intention to investigate or 
institute legal proceedings in respect of an irregularity constitute a ground for 
interruption of the limitation period, in accordance with the [third] subparagraph 
of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 11. 2021 – CASE C-728/21 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
1995, according to which ‘the limitation period shall be interrupted by any act of 
the competent authority, notified to the person in question, relating to 
investigation or legal proceedings concerning the irregularity?’ 
Thus, in accordance with Article 267 TFEU and Articles 269 and 272 of the 
Código de Processo Civil (Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure), it is appropriate 
to stay these proceedings pursuant to Article 1 of the CPTA. 
ORDER 
In the light of all of the foregoing, an order is hereby made for the question set out 
above to be referred to the CJEU for a preliminary and, in consequence, for these 
proceedings to be stayed. 
[…]